Author Topic: Define Natitude  (Read 49287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9995
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #375: December 22, 2011, 09:55:33 AM »
Not everything has direct correlation. "The Buck Stops Here" is usually just a saying. I believe Kasten left specifically because of the Lerners, Bowden and Riggleman did not.

And where are you getting this stuff about Davey and Rizzo not complaining in public? I didn't say anything like that. I think they are in cahoots and put Boz up to this, I said as much.

I was responding to the idea that the organization is in disarray, I don't believe that it is. Yet.

If you think that "the buck stops here" is just a saying, I'd have to ask whether you have owned your own company or led a major project.  Everything flows down from the top and in the case of the Lerner family they are known for micro managing. 

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #376: December 22, 2011, 09:56:31 AM »
Right, that was my next question, isn't there some big brouhaha about not paying the additional $2 per subscriber anymore?

Not sure, I doubt it though.  It's entirely possible the agreements were written so that, as others have pointed out, MASN was on the hook regardless of subscribers.  What might be important for Angelos's argument will be the Nielsen numbers (non-existent) and any future regulation regarding cable channel bundling that might be on the horizon (i.e. the dawn of a la carte cable programming). 

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2967
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #377: December 22, 2011, 09:57:21 AM »
But is there any value, at all, if there aren't subscribers?

It's market value.  i.e. the value the Nats could get from Comcast or something if MASN dropped them.  The argument is going to be over how much that is.  If MASN is arguing they can't hold subscribers, that would be MASN's failing to the Nats, not the other way around.  The reset in question exists for the exact reason of protecting the Nationals from that sort of business. 

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #378: December 22, 2011, 10:00:55 AM »
It's market value.  i.e. the value the Nats could get from Comcast or something if MASN dropped them.  The argument is going to be over how much that is.  If MASN is arguing they can't hold subscribers, that would be MASN's failing to the Nats, not the other way around.  The reset in question exists for the exact reason of protecting the Nationals from that sort of business. 

Ah, I follow you now, thanks.  I think Blue was trying to make the same point with JCA and I during the Pats game but I wasn't really paying attention.  I just don't see a major increase coming out of this.  I'd love to be wrong here but I kind of doubt it.

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2967
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #379: December 22, 2011, 10:03:34 AM »
Yeah, whether or not it will be a lot is a whole different ball of wax.  Reasonable to hope though, given the Angels and Rangers deals, combined with some evidence the Nats ratings are building.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #380: December 22, 2011, 10:06:19 AM »
Yeah, whether or not it will be a lot is a whole different ball of wax.  Reasonable to hope though, given the Angels and Rangers deals, combined with some evidence the Nats ratings are building.

Isn't the Rangers deal a result of the Mavericks being on the same network though? 

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #381: December 22, 2011, 10:06:34 AM »
If you think that "the buck stops here" is just a saying, I'd have to ask whether you have owned your own company or led a major project.  Everything flows down from the top and in the case of the Lerner family they are known for micro managing. 

This is tiresome, we're just splitting hairs.

 The Lerners are responsible for everything that happens with the team because they own it, yes.  They are not however the REASON that certain things happen on an individual basis.

There's a difference.

The Lerners are the reason that Kasten left
The Lerners are not the reason that Bowden and Riggleman left

The Lerners are the reason that Rizzo is here
The Lerners are not the reason Doug Slaten is not here

There's a difference

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #382: December 22, 2011, 10:08:48 AM »
The Lerners are not the reason that Bowden and Riggleman left

Wasn't Marky Mark involved in the Smiley affair that brought Leatherpants down?  Also, Riggleman left because he got fed up with the head cheese so I'm not really sure how you can absolve the Lerners of blame on those two.  Doug Slaten, sucking on the other hand, is not on them.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #383: December 22, 2011, 10:11:28 AM »
Wasn't Marky Mark involved in the Smiley affair that brought Leatherpants down?  Also, Riggleman left because he got fed up with the head cheese so I'm not really sure how you can absolve the Lerners of blame on those two.  Doug Slaten, sucking on the other hand, is not on them.

Bowden was under federal investigation, the Lerners didn't make that up and Riggleman left because he was an idiot and walked out in the middle of the season. The owners did not make him leave by any measure. Rizzo not wanting to negotiate in the middle of the year was the reason for Riggleman. Doesn't matter, I don't think Rizzo had any intention of retaining Riggleman regardless.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #384: December 22, 2011, 10:17:23 AM »
Bowden was under federal investigation, the Lerners didn't make that up

I never said they did, I asked if Marky Mark was involved with the Smiley signing, which is something I believe PB69 has referenced in the past.  If that's true that's not something you can ignore.

and Riggleman left because he was an idiot and walked out in the middle of the season. The owners did not make him leave by any measure.

I tend to think otherwise.  I'm sure Riggleman knew, when he took the job, he was only there because he was cheap and would be happy to have a gig and would never bark about being slighted.  I tend to believe he got tired of being disrespected and gave Mensa Mike an ultimatum - show me you and the owners believe in me or I'm out of here.  He knew what was going to happen when he did it but he did it anyway.

Was it a crappy thing to do?  No doubt.  Do I respect him for not being a nag and demanding a little respect?  Yeah, I do.  It's the same reason I've left jobs before - sometimes you have to look out for yourself and demand respect.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9995
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #385: December 22, 2011, 10:21:05 AM »
Wasn't Marky Mark involved in the Smiley affair that brought Leatherpants down?  Also, Riggleman left because he got fed up with the head cheese so I'm not really sure how you can absolve the Lerners of blame on those two.  Doug Slaten, sucking on the other hand, is not on them.

Correct, the Slaten debacle cannot be blamed on ownership.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #386: December 22, 2011, 10:26:30 AM »
I never said they did, I asked if Marky Mark was involved with the Smiley signing, which is something I believe PB69 has referenced in the past.  If that's true that's not something you can ignore.

I tend to think otherwise.  I'm sure Riggleman knew, when he took the job, he was only there because he was cheap and would be happy to have a gig and would never bark about being slighted.  I tend to believe he got tired of being disrespected and gave Mensa Mike an ultimatum - show me you and the owners believe in me or I'm out of here.  He knew what was going to happen when he did it but he did it anyway.

Was it a crappy thing to do?  No doubt.  Do I respect him for not being a nag and demanding a little respect?  Yeah, I do.  It's the same reason I've left jobs before - sometimes you have to look out for yourself and demand respect.

A smart person understand the environment that they're in. Riggleman is an idiot because he had no leg to stand on. He did not have a winning track record, he had not demonstrated that he could win at all. What was he making an ultimatum about? On what basis? And how was he being disrespected?  He was being paid by the terms of his contract. He was the one that wanted to throw out the contract and negotiate a new one. Rizzo made it clear that would not happen until after the season. Pushing the issue, making an ultimatum and then stomping out when things didn't go his way was infantile on every level. There's nothing to respect there.

And I'm all for demanding respect, when it's earned. But demanding to be extended when you've proven nothing is not respect, it's delusional.  If Riggleman was smart, he would have stuck with the team to the end, probably with a winning record and then renegotiated a deal.

Gah .. I don't want to get into this. Riggleman has no one to blame but himself for his exit.

Sorry for the derailment

Carry on

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #387: December 22, 2011, 10:29:32 AM »
A smart person understand the environment that they're in....Riggleman has no one to blame but himself for his exit.

That's funny, I said the same thing about Rizzo and everyone thought I was out of line.  To quote Denny Green - the Lerners are who we thought they are - incompetent. 

The point here is the head brass have their heads up their asses and aren't changing any time soon.  Some people get tired of it and, damn the consequences, move on.  What I wouldn't give to hit Stan Kasten up with some truth serum to get his take on Natitude®.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #388: December 22, 2011, 10:43:17 AM »
That's funny, I said the same thing about Rizzo and everyone thought I was out of line.  To quote Denny Green - the Lerners are who we thought they are - incompetent. 

The point here is the head brass have their heads up their asses and aren't changing any time soon.  Some people get tired of it and, damn the consequences, move on.  What I wouldn't give to hit Stan Kasten up with some truth serum to get his take on Natitude®.

Not sure what you're saying about Rizzo, he's still here.  And I don't think the Lerners are incompetent. You don't become Billionaires by being incompetent. But they are control freaks, God only knows how that works out in the end. Ted is getting up there though, very curious to see how things are once Mark takes over.

Gah - Stan Kasten, I'm sure there are things he gives a crap about, but Nats fans will never be one of them. So yeah, freak him. There is nothing he has to say that I want to hear.

I'm sure there's loads of dirt behind the scenes, wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall so I could hear it myself. I enjoy some good dirt from time to time.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2647
  • Too Stressed to care.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #389: December 22, 2011, 11:12:00 AM »
Right, that was my next question, isn't there some big brouhaha about not paying the additional $2 per subscriber anymore?

My take on that is that the cable providers (Comcast, Cox, Verizon, et al) want to keep that $2 for themselves. That cuts into profit. And what I think that MASN understands is that availability of the Regional Sports Network is the type of thing that drives users from one provider to another. I wouldn't be on FIOS if they did not offer MASN 1 and 2. I'd still be with Cox. MASN knows that. And so do the providers, that's why they pay the $2 in the first place.

As for Angelos versus the Nats getting more money. IMHO, It's all but a guarantee that the Nats get more money out of this. Either MASN realizes the value and gives the Nats a larger cut or (here's where my hopes are) the Nats ask for so much that MASN is happy to be divorced from them and the Nats can go out and get a market rate for their games and be on a network that cares about them.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16740
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #390: December 22, 2011, 11:15:14 AM »
My take on that is that the cable providers (Comcast, Cox, Verizon, et al) want to keep that $2 for themselves. That cuts into profit. And what I think that MASN understands is that availability of the Regional Sports Network is the type of thing that drives users from one provider to another. I wouldn't be on FIOS if they did not offer MASN 1 and 2. I'd still be with Cox. MASN knows that. And so do the providers, that's why they pay the $2 in the first place.

As for Angelos versus the Nats getting more money. IMHO, It's all but a guarantee that the Nats get more money out of this. Either MASN realizes the value and gives the Nats a larger cut or (here's where my hopes are) the Nats ask for so much that MASN is happy to be divorced from them and the Nats can go out and get a market rate for their games and be on a network that cares about them.

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

What about the Nats ending up on Comcast, which I think would be ideal. Is that even a possibility?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37359
  • LAC 8)
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #391: December 22, 2011, 11:42:54 AM »
Quote from: Boz
Their toughest negotiation isn’t with agent Scott Boras but with Ted Lerner.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #392: December 22, 2011, 11:44:54 AM »
Not sure what you're saying about Rizzo, he's still here.

Right now he is, sure.  He's also still expecting a leopard to change its spots.  Both he and Riggleman knew who they were getting in bed with when they joined the Nats is all I'm saying.

And I don't think the Lerners are incompetent. You don't become Billionaires by being incompetent.

I divorce the Lerners that are real estate moguls from the clowns that bought the team for an annuity stream.  The current ownership group are clowns when it comes to fielding a winning team and that's all that I give a crap about since, as TomTerp and others have so eloquently pointed out, the Lerners aren't going to spend their real estate money to help the team. 

When it comes to making money off of the team and making money outside of baseball there is no debate that they competent.  When it comes to fielding a winner or pretending to give a crap about fielding one they fail miserably. 

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13876
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #393: December 22, 2011, 11:45:48 AM »
I wouldn't be on FIOS if they did not offer MASN 1 and 2. I'd still be with Cox. MASN knows that. And so do the providers, that's why they pay the $2 in the first place.

Unless, of course, you live somewhere that doesn't offer a choice.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6296
  • Sign all the Cubans
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #394: December 22, 2011, 11:54:19 AM »
Well Ted Lerner's 86 so hopefully we won't have to deal with him to much longer.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9995
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #395: December 22, 2011, 11:56:22 AM »
Well Ted Lerner's 86 so hopefully we won't have to deal with him to much longer.

Now that is not a very nice natitude.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6296
  • Sign all the Cubans
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #396: December 22, 2011, 11:56:55 AM »
Now that is not a very nice natitude.

But its true

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15632
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #397: December 22, 2011, 11:58:22 AM »
What about the Nats ending up on Comcast, which I think would be ideal. Is that even a possibility?

The nats to MASN was the life raft the Os got in exchange for loosing the largest and richest part of their market- no way it happens


Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 9995
    • Twitter
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #398: December 22, 2011, 12:01:47 PM »
The nats to MASN was the life raft the Os got in exchange for loosing the largest and richest part of their market- no way it happens



Doubtful that the renegotiation goes to arbitration and in any case it's doubtful that the final terms are made public.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34034
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Define Natitude
« Reply #399: December 22, 2011, 12:25:38 PM »
Phil Wood sure hopes not.