Author Topic: Mets are buying the Chiefs  (Read 2333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21509
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #50: October 10, 2017, 01:14:22 PM »
The Chiefs locally owned. Reading the local stories, it seemed like the state government helped with the deal. I'm guessing this was in the works for awhile. It would be nice if the Learners would learn the lesson, it seems like a large number of aaa affiliates are owned by their teams and play local to those teams.   
It looks like only 5 AAA teams are owned by the parent club, including now Syracuse. Maybe it becomes the next trend, but it's not remotely a league wide practice.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23948
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #51: October 10, 2017, 01:15:28 PM »
Would need to be 2 years, but yes, it could - if UVA were to agree.  I suspect the IL would also want a bunch of money spent on the stadium in Richmond (or a new one) as well.  That's a lot of effort, though - suspect they might be willing to take 2 years with Vegas and then try to do better in the next round of musical chairs, or try actually making a decent offer to Nashville to switch from the A's.  That's a short-term arrangement, so it might be doable. 
Well, as an admirer of Copecwby20 and MDS, I'm thinking the ideal solution here might be a 3 way change of affiliations.  Rochester is now the Twinkies.  I would think Nashville might be as attractive to them as Rochester, not accounting for the history.  I think Rochester and Nashville do not go back with their current affiliations even a decade (Rochester was Os before they got Norfolk, As had Sacramento  IIRC).  Rochester also is in with all NL/AL East teams in its IL division, including Syracuse.  Oakland to LV, Nashville to MN, and Rochester to the Nats would align the distances to the parent teams pretty well and not require changing the current PCL / IL team lineups. 

OTOH, Nashville could work as a Nats affiliate. Right now, Nats players mostly do rehab in Potomac or Harrisburg, so proximity to DC for the AAA team isn't a factor there.  As for the shuttle and quick recall, generally there is a rosterable guy on the 40 man in Harrisburg if the recall from AAA is delayed. 

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 1545
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #52: October 10, 2017, 01:17:38 PM »
The team in the IL with the lowest attendance (for each year of the last 8 years or so) is the Gwinnett Braves, who moved from Richmond in 2009 and have had really bad numbers ever since. The owner keeps asking the county for help to increase attendance, including requests to change/loosen liquor laws so they can do cheap beer promos. They are not making any money and the county is pissed at having given them a bunch of dollars for the stadium and ongoing maintenance. If I were in the Nats' situation, that would be my target. Get that team and move them to a more lucrative, Nats-friendly locale within the overall IL. They might not be able to get them back into Richmond  and there might be pissing contests with Angelos but there's still a lot of Mid-atlantic left. Heck, put them over in RFK or that big parcel of land at Skyland where Wal Mart was going to go till they got pissy and left. The Mayor would probably bend over backwards to get a minor league team at RFK since they are required to use that land for recreation and no team wants to go there.

I don't remember if Gwinnett is one of the 18 teams with a contract up though.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21509
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #53: October 10, 2017, 01:25:58 PM »
Gwinett is owned by the Braves.

There are a bunch of affiliate contracts that expire in 2018, including Buffalo, Norfolk and Scranton.

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 1545
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #54: October 10, 2017, 01:30:33 PM »
Gwinett is owned by the Braves.

There are a bunch of affiliate contracts that expire in 2018.

My bad. There's a GM (or someone?) who is quoted in a couple of articles who sounds like the actual owner.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #55: October 10, 2017, 01:36:34 PM »
It looks like only 5 AAA teams are owned by the parent club, including now Syracuse. Maybe it becomes the next trend, but it's not remotely a league wide practice.

In the international league, The mets, braves, red sox, Yankees, and Indians own their aaa affiliate. A third of the league seems like a decent number. I'd like to see them make a run at buying Norfolk, or just found a team locally and refuse to sign a player development contract with anyone not willing to move

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21509
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #56: October 10, 2017, 01:47:45 PM »
In the international league, The mets, braves, red sox, Yankees, and Indians own their aaa affiliate. A third of the league seems like a decent number. I'd like to see them make a run at buying Norfolk, or just found a team locally and refuse to sign a player development contract with anyone not willing to move
From the list posted on page 1, only Atlanta, Boston, now the Mets, Dodgers and Cardinals own their AAA affiliate. 5/30 isn't a huge amount. Not saying the Nats should or shouldn't, but don't think it's an indictable thing for the Nats/Lerners to not have taken that step.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 2818
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #57: October 10, 2017, 02:03:05 PM »
What about Durham?

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #58: October 10, 2017, 02:05:13 PM »
From the list posted on page 1, only Atlanta, Boston, now the Mets, Dodgers and Cardinals own their AAA affiliate. 5/30 isn't a huge amount. Not saying the Nats should or shouldn't, but don't think it's an indictable thing for the Nats/Lerners to not have taken that step.

The Yankees own Scranton. I could care less what happens in the PCL- I do care about the international league where the practice is relatively common

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21509
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #59: October 10, 2017, 03:09:23 PM »
The Yankees own Scranton. I could care less what happens in the PCL- I do care about the international league where the practice is relatively common
A little searching and the Yankees are partial owners of the franchise. The list I saw may only have clubs that are full owners of the AAA affiliate.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 23948
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #60: October 10, 2017, 03:33:27 PM »
Other than Richmond, it is hard to think of a relocation destination near Washington that is comparable in size to AAA markets and that does not have a team.  Roanoke has about 300,000 but has Salem (Red Sox owned).  I don't think they would allow VA Beach to get a team along with Norfolk.  Rather than a bidding war with Angelos over Norfolk, I'd imagine an accommodation could be reached re: Waldorf and one of the A ball teams (Hagerstown or Potomac).  Are there places in W. Va that make sense?

Offline dcpatti

  • Posts: 1545
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #61: October 10, 2017, 03:36:59 PM »
Other than Richmond, it is hard to think of a relocation destination near Washington that is comparable in size to AAA markets and that does not have a team.  Roanoke has about 300,000 but has Salem (Red Sox owned).  I don't think they would allow VA Beach to get a team along with Norfolk.  Rather than a bidding war with Angelos over Norfolk, I'd imagine an accommodation could be reached re: Waldorf and one of the A ball teams (Hagerstown or Potomac).  Are there places in W. Va that make sense?

There was talk a couple years ago of scouting Leesburg as a potential location. West Virginia has the land and price point but may not have the local economy to support a team.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1814
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #62: October 10, 2017, 03:39:50 PM »
A little searching and the Yankees are partial owners of the franchise. The list I saw may only have clubs that are full owners of the AAA affiliate.

Most of the ownerships are partial.  As far as I know, Gwinnett is the only one that's 100% owned by the parent club at present, although that doesn't include situations like SWB and Pawtucket, where the parent club effectively controls the affiliate through a partial stake or through being owned by minority owners of the MLB club. 

The Yankees own Scranton. I could care less what happens in the PCL- I do care about the international league where the practice is relatively common

If you look at the list of teams open to switching in 2018 and which ones are likely prospects for change, you'll see that most of the open seats are in the PCL.  If everyone else manages to hang on, the Nats end up in Las Vegas as of right now, and the next two most likely to switch are Colorado Springs (which is moving to San Antonio, but the Brewers will switch affiliations), Fresno, and Nashville, also both PCL.  The more widespread parent club ownership in the IL gets, the more likely it becomes that the Nats end up in the PCL.

Other than Richmond, it is hard to think of a relocation destination near Washington that is comparable in size to AAA markets and that does not have a team.  Roanoke has about 300,000 but has Salem (Red Sox owned).  I don't think they would allow VA Beach to get a team along with Norfolk.  Rather than a bidding war with Angelos over Norfolk, I'd imagine an accommodation could be reached re: Waldorf and one of the A ball teams (Hagerstown or Potomac).  Are there places in W. Va that make sense?

Norfolk is also owned by the same entity that owns Frederick and Bowie, so that's a pretty unlikely place for the Nats to break in.  Richmond is really the only logical answer. 

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 17808
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #63: October 10, 2017, 03:43:11 PM »
Annapolis would be the right size. Oddly, there are a lot of Nats fans in that part of Maryland.

But it really should be Richmond. There are teams in Harrisburg and Hagerstown, and Frederick has the Keys.

Other than Richmond, it is hard to think of a relocation destination near Washington that is comparable in size to AAA markets and that does not have a team.  Roanoke has about 300,000 but has Salem (Red Sox owned).  I don't think they would allow VA Beach to get a team along with Norfolk.  Rather than a bidding war with Angelos over Norfolk, I'd imagine an accommodation could be reached re: Waldorf and one of the A ball teams (Hagerstown or Potomac).  Are there places in W. Va that make sense?

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21509
  • Take two of these 30 minutes before first pitch.
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #64: October 10, 2017, 03:44:02 PM »
I personally wouldn't mind if they ended up in the PCL. They'd come through Omaha and I could go see them play for a change.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #65: October 10, 2017, 04:00:32 PM »
Annapolis would be the right size. Oddly, there are a lot of Nats fans in that part of Maryland.

But it really should be Richmond. There are teams in Harrisburg and Hagerstown, and Frederick has the Keys.


since anti-trust doesn't apply, is there anything stopping them from just founding a team in Annapolis and applying to the international league?

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1814
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #66: October 10, 2017, 04:08:41 PM »
since anti-trust doesn't apply, is there anything stopping them from just founding a team in Annapolis and applying to the international league?

Antitrust law wouldn't bar them doing that anyway.  But yes, the obvious one being that they would not get league approval (either from the IL or MLB) to add a 31st AAA team.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #67: October 10, 2017, 04:16:32 PM »
Antitrust law wouldn't bar them doing that anyway.  But yes, the obvious one being that they would not get league approval (either from the IL or MLB) to add a 31st AAA team.

the whole farm league system violates anti-trust in a myriad of ways- the exemption is why it doesn't apply- otherwise it would almost defiantly apply, barring competitors from founding a new team by their competitors seems pretty open and shut- not that the lerners have the balls to threaten MLB with testing the exemption (it's not like they couldn't look north and see Angelos making the threat and the mlb caving rather than risking it every time). As far as a 31st team- if you don't sign a player development contract with whoever is left holding the bag, they really don't have much choice other than folding or indy ball.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1814
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #68: October 10, 2017, 04:29:18 PM »
the whole farm league system violates anti-trust in a myriad of ways- the exemption is why it doesn't apply- otherwise it would almost defiantly apply, barring competitors from founding a new team by their competitors seems pretty open and shut- not that the lerners have the balls to threaten MLB with testing the exemption (it's not like they couldn't look north and see Angelos making the threat and the mlb caving rather than risking it every time). As far as a 31st team- if you don't sign a player development contract with whoever is left holding the bag, they really don't have much choice other than folding or indy ball.

Yes, thank you.  I'm an antitrust lawyer.  But antitrust law does not prevent someone from simply opening a business on spec and then trying to break into an antitrust-immunized cartel by a friendly application, which was what you were proposing the Nats do by starting a team and simply applying to the IL.  Rather, the commercial realities that follow from a lack of antitrust law do. 

And ironically given your statement, the antitrust exemption (actually, two separate ones in the case of minor league baseball) is exactly what allows the leagues to simply refuse to consider an application for a 31st team.  There is zero chance that founding a team and simply applying to join the league would work, when the keys to league membership are held by a cartel whose members must protect each other in order for it to work.  If they allowed one new team in, every single owner in AAA would then be looking over his shoulder for the next "31st team" to cause him to lose his own spot in the league.  And because they are legally allowed to, they can pretty much openly collude to prevent that from happening.  In other words, they have no reason to allow someone to start a team (for free) and apply to the league when they can force that same someone to buy one of a limited supply of franchises - at what are therefore artificially inflated prices - instead.  Allowing this type of end run would instantly tank AAA team values.

Similarly, the territorial division (blatantly illegal absent an antitrust exemption) that allows the Orioles to block new minor league teams in Maryland would allow Angelos alone to veto such an arrangement before it ever got to the stage of an application to the IL. 

Also, the Lerners challenging either one of the antitrust immunities that protect them for the sake of a AAA team would be monumentally stupid: they'd be instantly wiping hundreds of millions of dollars (conservatively) off their franchise value for the Nats while gaining...a AAA team in Annapolis.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #69: October 10, 2017, 04:51:30 PM »
Look at what happened when Angelos threatened to litigate the move to DC- baseball caved so fast to avoid the possibility of discovery let alone a judge getting the chance to weigh in that the Nats have no real territory and no independent tv rights. It would be in the Learners interest to avoid challenging the status quo, but it's also in baseball's best interest to avoid the challenge and risking it over a aaa location is not something baseball would do (of course Lerner isn't angelos)

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1814
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #70: October 10, 2017, 05:04:07 PM »
Look at what happened when Angelos threatened to litigate the move to DC- baseball caved so fast to avoid the possibility of discovery let alone a judge getting the chance to weigh in that the Nats have no real territory and no independent tv rights. It would be in the Learners interest to avoid challenging the status quo, but it's also in baseball's best interest to avoid the challenge and risking it over a aaa location is not something baseball would do (of course Lerner isn't angelos)

Baseball caved because there was an easy way for the league and Angelos to both make a ton of money without disrupting the cartel instead of having one cartel member get screwed (under its warped logic) while the other 29 benefitted. That's how cartels work - they divide the spoils that result from market power. 

And an additional lawsuit about minor league baseball violating antitrust laws would be of essentially zero risk to MLB at present - the application of the antitrust exemption to the minor leagues was just reviewed and upheld 4 months ago by the Ninth Circuit, and the plaintiffs (who lost at the district court as well) have now filed a petition for cert.  So the issue is already before the Supreme Court if they are at all inclined to consider it.  If they don't, MLB has a gold-plated hammer to wield against anyone seeking to challenge the exemption as it applies to the minors. 

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #71: October 10, 2017, 05:10:51 PM »
Baseball caved because there was an easy way for the league and Angelos to both make a ton of money without disrupting the cartel instead of having one cartel member get screwed (under its warped logic) while the other 29 benefitted. That's how cartels work - they divide the spoils that result from market power. 

If that were the case, the larger number of small market teams would have forced revenue sharing on the teams in LA and NYC long ago. I think risk avoidance is the primary motivating factor with the MLB. They have a setup that is almost guaranteed to make money so long as it never gets challenged. Everything hinges on a century old ruling that baseball isn't really a business - they aren't going to risk getting that distinguished into oblivion

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 1814
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #72: October 10, 2017, 05:27:56 PM »
If that were the case, the larger number of small market teams would have forced revenue sharing on the teams in LA and NYC long ago. I think risk avoidance is the primary motivating factor with the MLB. They have a setup that is almost guaranteed to make money so long as it never gets challenged. Everything hinges on a century old ruling that baseball isn't really a business - they aren't going to risk getting that distinguished into oblivion

No, just because entities are in a cartel doesn't mean that they all wield equal power within that cartel.  Risk avoidance is big, but it's not the only thing operating.

And it's not a single century-old ruling: there are narrower exemptions that allow the other sports to function in very similar ways, and also for collectively-bargained labor contracts, which add up to virtually the same result.  But as above, MLB can't really help the judicial exemption being challenged: they can't stop people from suing them, and sometimes those people refuse to be paid off.

Offline whytev

  • Posts: 8768
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #73: October 10, 2017, 05:35:47 PM »
Is there anything stopping them from setting up Richmond as an expansion team?

The fact that if you add a team one of the teams has nobody to play every day. And one of the teams has no ML affiliate.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 18700
Re: Mets are buying the Chiefs
« Reply #74: October 10, 2017, 05:40:03 PM »
No, just because entities are in a cartel doesn't mean that they all wield equal power within that cartel.  Risk avoidance is big, but it's not the only thing operating.

And it's not a single century-old ruling: there are narrower exemptions that allow the other sports to function in very similar ways, and also for collectively-bargained labor contracts, which add up to virtually the same result.  But as above, MLB can't really help the judicial exemption being challenged: they can't stop people from suing them, and sometimes those people refuse to be paid off.


Standing to challenge and refusing to be paid off (plus resources to pursue it) is a very small (maybe nonexistent) group