Author Topic: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2  (Read 4062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2k6nats

  • Posts: 9238
  • Are we having fun yet?
Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Topic Start: April 28, 2009, 06:52:21 AM »
Game Time: 7:05 PM
Venue: Citizens Bank Park
TV: MASN HD
Radio: WFED 1500, SBN 1390, XM 184


 (4-14)


John Lannan
0-2, 4.43 ERA

(2B) Ronnie Belliard
(1B) Nick Johnson
(3B) Ryan Zimmerman
(LF) Adam Dunn
(CF) Elijah Dukes
(RF) Austin Kearns
(SC) Jesus Flores
(SS) Alberto Gonzalez
(SP) John Lannan

(10-8) 


Cole Hamels
0-2, 9.69 ERA

Jimmy Rollins (SS)
Shane Victorino (CF)
Chase Utley (2B)
Ryan Howard (1B)
Jayson Werth (RF)
Raul Ibanez (LF)
Pedro Feliz (3B)
Chris Coste (SC)
Cole Hamels (SP)

Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #1: April 28, 2009, 09:16:57 AM »
I'm just not excited. I don't think I'll even tune in tonight. And that goofy picture of Hamels makes me want to punch him in the face.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29995
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #2: April 28, 2009, 09:21:12 AM »
I'm just not excited. I don't think I'll even tune in tonight. And that goofy picture of Hamels makes me want to punch him in the face.

Agreed.  It's impossible to feel anything but dread when watching these games anymore.  If I happen to be home while the game is still on I'll probably turn it on, but I'm sure not going to make my plans around it.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17721
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #3: April 28, 2009, 09:33:25 AM »
I'm just not excited. I don't think I'll even tune in tonight.
I don't think I could not watch if the option to watch is available to me.

Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #4: April 28, 2009, 09:38:21 AM »
I don't think I could not watch if the option to watch is available to me.

It would be an interesting experiment if we all here decided not to tune in, not to do the Gamethread and instead went out and did "other things." Tomorrow we would post a thread and list all the things we did and accomplished when we weren't watching the game.

That could be an interesting list to send to the FO. :lol:

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29995
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #5: April 28, 2009, 09:41:55 AM »
That could be an interesting list to send to the FO. :lol:

Why would they care?  We're "bad" fans.  We demand silly things like accountability and results.  Considering a lot of the things that get said around here, I'm sure we are persona non-grata with anyone in the organization that actually matters.

Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #6: April 28, 2009, 09:51:19 AM »
Why would they care?  We're "bad" fans.  We demand silly things like accountability and results.  Considering a lot of the things that get said around here, I'm sure we are persona non-grata with anyone in the organization that actually matters.

I'm hoping that when they see that most of us spent our nights drinking and watching adult film, they will turn the stadium into a giant movie theater that sells beer and shows "Debbie Does Dallas" on the big screen.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13871
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #7: April 28, 2009, 10:27:33 AM »
Why would they care?  We're "bad" fans.  We demand silly things like accountability and results.  Considering a lot of the things that get said around here, I'm sure we are persona non-grata with anyone in the organization that actually matters.
:clap: QFMFT

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 17249
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #8: April 28, 2009, 10:45:41 AM »
I thought Guzman came off the DL today?

He was put on the 15-day DL effective April 14, so today would be his 15th and last day.

Except for lost concessions sales, the Nationals likely don't care if nobody attends home games, since they just emulate the Marlins, and get a "poor" team's bigger payoff from MLB revenue sharing.  As Natsaddicts pointed out, the Marlins' stadium is distant, hot, and poorly designed for baseball,   Unlike the Nationals, the Marlins have a huge television audience.  With a guaranteed MASN payoff, having NO FM radio and poor ratings doesn't matter to them either.

DC, through Congress, should SUE the Lerners for fraud (impersonating a major league baseball team.)  DC could hire 2k6nats for the suit, but he'd probably submit the filings from another day's lineup case.
 :rimshot:


Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15495
  • Future
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #9: April 28, 2009, 10:59:57 AM »
Why would they care?  We're "bad" fans.  We demand silly things like accountability and results.  Considering a lot of the things that get said around here, I'm sure we are persona non-grata with anyone in the organization that actually matters.

When you have fans like Nats320, who suck up so much to the organization, ignoring everything thats going on, then theres no need to listen to the truth.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #10: April 28, 2009, 11:13:43 AM »
we're gonna lose i didn't start the gameday thread.  oh well, it's not like losing is something new to us.


Offline DCFan

  • Posts: 3597
  • What are you dense?
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #11: April 28, 2009, 12:00:05 PM »
Except for lost concessions sales, the Nationals likely don't care if nobody attends home games, since they just emulate the Marlins, and get a "poor" team's bigger payoff from MLB revenue sharing

Do the Nats receive revenue sharing like the other "poor" teams (like the Marlins)?

Online blue911

  • Posts: 15988
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #12: April 28, 2009, 12:40:51 PM »
Do the Nats receive revenue sharing like the other "poor" teams (like the Marlins)?

If they do it can't be much. After all the MASN deal is what 9th in MLB?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33558
  • Lets go to work
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #13: April 28, 2009, 12:42:58 PM »
With the amount of money MASN pays the Nats and O's... you'd think they'd be able to afford better actors for their awful Nats/O's commercials.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 17249
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #14: April 28, 2009, 01:52:58 PM »
Do the Nats receive revenue sharing like the other "poor" teams (like the Marlins)?


I don't know, but NatsAddict can probably answer that.  He posted an elaborate explanation in Off Topic/Red Loft a few years ago about why the Marlins have the lowest payroll.  I don't think it has anything to do with TV/radio rights.  I recall that teams with the lowest attendance receive revenue sharing, at the expense of those with higher attendance.  MLB does not require the team to use that money to build a better team, in order to attract more attendance.  NatsAddict's conclusion was that Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria (the former Expos owner) simply enriches himself by pocketing the revenue sharing, (if I recall what he wrote correctly.)  And that he can make more money with a low payroll/low attendance team, win or lose, than he could by trying to field a winner.


"Greed is good." 

Offline Air Zimmerman

  • Posts: 7179
  • best 3b in the business
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #15: April 28, 2009, 02:17:37 PM »
Hamels is going to get back on track tonight.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17721
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #16: April 28, 2009, 02:21:05 PM »
Hamels is going to get back on track tonight.
So is Lannan, he generally seems to rise to the occasion in these situations.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 51482
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #17: April 28, 2009, 02:39:35 PM »
I'm hoping that when they see that most of us spent our nights drinking and watching adult film, they will turn the stadium into a giant movie theater that sells beer and shows "Debbie Does Dallas" on the big screen.


I'm grateful for the second "E" in Debbie or I might get confused with the one we have here in Washington. That Debbi's face and voice have a negative effect on me....

 


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #18: April 28, 2009, 02:44:33 PM »
our ownership and management accept failure, so i assume we're going to lose tonight.

Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #19: April 28, 2009, 02:54:20 PM »
The Nats are probably a revenue sharing net recipient.  All teams pay in 31% of their net local revenue into a pool.  That pool is then divided evenly between each of the 30 teams.   Some teams will receive much more than they paid in, none moreso than the Fish who should get close to $40 million this year (which is based on the 2008 revenues).

The Mets and Yankees get huge breaks on revenue sharing as their shares of the stadium cost is amortized over 8 years (15% a year 2009-2013, 10% 2014-2015, and 5% in 2016).  That is going to put a huge dent in the revenue sharing pool.  The teams' share of the stadium cost are generally reported in the $1.3 billion range.  Fifteen percent, or $195 million, is deducted from their local revenues.  Since 31% of local revenues go into the RS pool, $60.45 is removed from the RS pool for each of the next 5 years, and then lesser amounts thereafter.

Additionally, thanks to a weird clause in the CBA, both the Yankees and Mets are enititled to reduce thier local revenues generated at their stadiums by 10%.

Also, Yankee stadium is inexplicably being treated as an operating lease as opposed to a capital lease (lease to own).  Therefore, by being treated as an operating lease, the entire rent payment is also excluded from local revenue.  They Yankees may actually end up being net revenue sharing recipients this next year (based on the 2009 revenues).

Revenue sharing was a Selig scheme to make his Brewers the most profitable team in baseball.   He succeeded.  He said he want MLB to be a partnership, and made it so - but with some serious anomalies.  It was Revenue sharing, not profit sharing.  So, while Selig did become a partner so far as revenues are concerned, he did not share in the expenses.  It is no coincidence that when Selig nominated two teams for contraction that they were the Twins and Expos - they were the biggest abusers of the revenue sharing.  By eliminating them, Selig's portion of the pie would be even larger.

The following is an excerpt from one part of a 6-part series on the lunacy of the business of baseball:

Quote
The table below ranks the 30 major league clubs from most to least profitable, net of revenue sharing.


                                                      Income from
                       Income from           2001    baseball ops
                          baseball        Revenue   after revenue
                        operations        Sharing         sharing
Milwaukee Brewers      $14,385,000     $1,744,000    $16,129,000
Seattle Mariners       $34,266,000   ($18,791,000)   $15,475,000
New York Yankees       $40,859,000   ($26,540,000)   $14,319,000
San Francisco Giants   $19,000,000    ($6,308,000)   $12,892,000
Detroit Tigers            $533,000     $5,127,000     $5,660,000
Oakland Athletics      ($7,113,000)   $10,520,000     $3,407,000
Cincinnati Reds       ($11,056,000)   $13,404,000     $2,348,000
Minnesota Twins       ($18,533,000)   $19,089,000       $536,000
Anaheim Angels         ($9,569,000)    $9,594,000        $25,000
Kansas City Royals    ($16,134,000)   $15,997,000      ($137,000)
Pittsburgh Pirates     ($2,984,000)    $1,782,000    ($1,202,000)
Chicago Cubs            $4,797,000    ($6,568,000)   ($1,771,000)
Baltimore Orioles       $1,460,000    ($6,807,000)   ($5,347,000)
St. Louis Cardinals     $1,869,000    ($8,229,000)   ($6,360,000)
Houston Astros         ($1,214,000)   ($5,185,000)   ($6,399,000)
New York Mets           $8,292,000   ($15,669,000)   ($7,377,000)
San Diego Padres      ($16,151,000)    $8,668,000    ($7,483,000)
Philadelphia Phillies ($20,865,000)   $11,752,000    ($9,113,000)
Florida Marlins       ($27,741,000)   $18,561,000    ($9,180,000)
Colorado Rockies       ($3,415,000)   ($6,029,000)   ($9,444,000)
Chicago White Sox      ($5,687,000)   ($4,201,000)   ($9,888,000)
Montreal Expos        ($38,519,000)   $28,517,000   ($10,002,000)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays  ($22,843,000)   $12,384,000   ($10,459,000)
Cleveland Indians        $1,881,000  ($13,254,000)  ($11,373,000)
Boston Red Sox           $2,712,000  ($16,438,000)  ($13,726,000)
Texas Rangers          ($15,689,000)  ($8,744,000)  ($24,433,000)
Atlanta Braves         ($14,380,000) ($10,647,000)  ($25,007,000)
Arizona Diamondbacks   ($32,152,000)  ($4,432,000)  ($36,584,000)
Toronto Blue Jays      ($52,927,000)   $9,830,000   ($43,097,000)
Los Angeles Dodgers    ($45,343,000)  ($9,107,000)  ($54,450,000)
Net Operating Loss    ($232,241,000)

That's right: in 2001, MLB's most profitable team was none other than Commissioner Bud Selig's own Milwaukee Brewers, who play in the majors' smallest market. Even with a new ballpark, the Brewers' local revenues remained below the industry average, so the Brewers received a revenue-sharing check despite turning a $14 million profit without it.

The Brewers were one of 11 clubs to report an operating profit before revenue sharing. Of the 11, only the Brewers and the Tigers also received revenue sharing money. Four of the other 12 revenue-sharing recipients became profitable as a result of it (the Athletics, Reds, Twins, and Angels), while the remaining eight (the Royals, Pirates, Padres, Phillies, Marlins, Expos, Devil Rays, and Blue Jays) saw their losses reduced.

On the other side of the equation, 13 of the 16 clubs that paid into the revenue-sharing pool wound up in the red. Just three--the Mariners, Yankees, and Giants--earned enough to remain profitable after their revenue-sharing payments. Six other teams (the Cubs, Orioles, Cardinals, Mets, Indians, and Red Sox) saw their operating profits turn into multimillion-dollar losses. Finally, seven clubs (the Astros, Rockies, White Sox, Rangers, Braves, Diamondbacks, and Dodgers) suffered the double indignity of having their operating losses compounded by revenue-sharing payments.


Baseball Prospectus


Offline NatsAddict

  • Posts: 4095
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #20: April 28, 2009, 03:13:48 PM »
This is something I did messing around in an attempt to very conservatively guestimate the Marlins 2006 revenue (used old revenue sharing, old ticket prices, etc.).  Note the total of revenue before a single ticket is sold - in the $60 million neighborhood.  In the past couple years, you can add revenue distributions from MLB.com and now the MLB network.  Based on this, my guess is that the Nats probably are presently in the $70 million range of revenue before the first ticket is sold.  (I don't know if the links still work - you can cut and paste them if you want to look them up)

Quote

Marlins Revenues:

National TV Broadcast Revenue
ESPN (2006 – Due Under New Contract)                          273,500,000
    Number of Teams                                                    30
    Average Per Team                                                         9,116,667
FOX (Contract Expires after 2006)
    Total Contract                                          2,500,000,000
    Number of Years                                                     6
    Average Per Year                                          416,666,667
    Number of Teams                                                    30
    Average Per Team                                                        13,888,889
Total National TV Broadcast Revenue                                         23,005,556
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/0915mlbtv0915.html

XM Radio
    Contract Value                                            650,000,000
    Number of Years                                                    11
    Average Per Year                                           59,090,909
    Number of Teams                                                    30
    Average Per Team                                                         1,969,697
Total National Broadcast Revenue                                            24,975,253
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/story/247916p-212347c.html

Local Media (2001 – 150 TV/Cable Game)                                      15,353,000
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1297
http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290777.html

Total Broadcast Revenue                                                     40,328,253

Revenue Sharing (2003)                                                      21,000,000
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1803537

Total “Before 1st Ticket Sold” Revenue,
excluding Merchandising, etc.                                               61,328,253


Revenue per ticket (2001 - discounted for give-aways)               13.29
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1294
Attendance (2005 at 2001 Prices)                                1,823,388    24,232,827

Total Revenue Before Merchandising, Concessions, etc.                        85,561,080

Justification
2003 Revenue (includes post-season)                                         101,000,000
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab_26.html




Offline amanuel

  • Posts: 379
  • Go NATS!
    • RBSL
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #21: April 28, 2009, 03:55:52 PM »
I hope Hamels doesnt throw a perfect game on us :/

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #22: April 28, 2009, 04:09:29 PM »
Nationals:
Belliard 2B
Johnson 1B
Zimmerman 3B
Dunn LF
Dukes CF
Kearns RF
Flores C
Gonzalez SS
Lannan P

Phillies:
Rollins  SS
Victorino CF
Utley 2B
Howard 1B
Werth RF
Ibanez LF
Feliz 3B
Coste C
Hamels P

courtesty of WT

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 11543
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #23: April 28, 2009, 04:10:57 PM »
Belliard leading off? ugh.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33558
  • Lets go to work
Re: Nationals @ Phillies, Game 2
« Reply #24: April 28, 2009, 04:13:38 PM »
I'll take it over Hernandez.

One more day till Guzman is back!