Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2020 Washington Nationals Thread ***WORLD SERIES CHAMPION***


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Yep you got me. If I didn't, Im not sure of your mental state. The rejection would be too much. Im trying to let you down slow. Maybe let the meds take effect, first

 

Riggo, every other post from you is a cry for help. My mental state should be the last thing weighing on you, emotionally.  There's enough sadness already rattling around in there already. I mean, this entire thread has been your own special Dr Phil episode for years. I'm not your enemy here. Your own insecurity is :(

 

You done whining/projecting/now? 

 

Quote

Feel free to contribute something to the conversation, though. It'll be a nice change.

 

We suck. But it'll be alright. Why? Because until the WS is won again, WE'RE STILL THE ****ING CHAMPS. WOO!

 

1b84db8de0bf3d47ca2f979ef16de7d8.gif

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

And yet, here you are, rooting for a team owned by Dan Snyder...

 

As much as it pains me to defend his ass, Danny boy didn't fight tooth and nails against the relocation of Ravens into Baltimore.  He's also not responsible for running a regional sports network like it's still stuck in the last century just so that he can try to skimp on paying market value tv rights to the Nationals.

 

The recent sexual harassment tips the balance in Angelos' favor, but I'm out since then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Riggo, every other post from you is a cry for help. My mental state should be the last thing weighing on you, emotionally.  There's enough sadness already rattling around in there already. I mean, this entire thread has been your own special Dr Phil episode for years. I'm not your enemy here. Your own insecurity is :(

 

You done whining/projecting/now? 

 

Mmmhmmm...thank you Dr. Sinister. What did you add to any conversation tonight?

After how many times referencing me, directly? You won't answer though. You can’t because Im your villain. Im here to make you feel better, so feel free to continue. I find it utterly fascinating. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

As much as it pains me to defend his ass, Danny boy didn't fight tooth and nails against the relocation of Ravens into Baltimore.  He's also not responsible for running a regional sports network like it's still stuck in the last century just so that he can try to skimp on paying market value tv rights to the Nationals.

 

The recent sexual harassment tips the balance in Angelos' favor, but I'm out since then.

 

Eh, if you're looking at them as what they've done with their respective sports franchises...It's still Snyder that's the worst one.  Sure, Angelos fought tooth and nail to block the Nats...a good chunk of his teams fans came from Northern VA at the time.  If you owned a sports franchise and another team moved in and threatened to take away a significant portion of your revenue stream, would you welcome them with open arms? 

 

But the real flaw with your argument is that Danny couldn't have fought tooth and nail against the Ravens coming to Baltimore, they were already there when he took over the team in 1999.  Jack Kent Cooke opposed Baltimore getting a team after the Colts left.  So what's your point?

 

In regards to MASN, yeah, it's a piece of ****, I won't argue there.

 

Outside of being miserable franchise owners, what they've done in their professional careers and as people, Angelos wins (in a positive manner) by miles.  And it's not even particularly close.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness, straight implosion up in here when we were talking about blowing it up the beginning of last season.

 

Some of y'all talk a lot about last year for folks that forgot what happened.  What's with this sore loser nonsense?  

 

Lick your wounds and stop acting petty. Stras plays tomorrow, when are we gonna play the O's in October? That's what I wanna know, I love to hate them, but waiting for that beltway hardware series now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CRobi21 said:

Manfreak said if one more team has an outbreak the season is kaput. First the Marlins, then the Cards in consecutive weeks it seemed. 

 

It's only a matter of time at this point.

 

Manfred is terrible, but I think they'll keep going.  He won't want to admit defeat and he won't want to not have a season where a World Series (no matter how watered down it is) wasn't played on his watch.   They'll come up with something like opening up the player pool, roster sizes, etc.  

 

And among the sports leagues, I don't think anyone wants to be the first one to be able to not complete a season and raise a white flag.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Eh, if you're looking at them as what they've done with their respective sports franchises...It's still Snyder that's the worst one.  Sure, Angelos fought tooth and nail to block the Nats...a good chunk of his teams fans came from Northern VA at the time.  If you owned a sports franchise and another team moved in and threatened to take away a significant portion of your revenue stream, would you welcome them with open arms? 

 

Yet legions of expansion teams have been established without entering into the marriage from hell that is MASN.  Thanks Angelos and Selig, you spineless moron.

 

Quote

But the real flaw with your argument is that Danny couldn't have fought tooth and nail against the Ravens coming to Baltimore, they were already there when he took over the team in 1999.  Jack Kent Cooke opposed Baltimore getting a team after the Colts left.  So what's your point?

 

 

Yeah, that's a brain fart.  But DC didn't require a pound of flesh from Ravens or Panthers, leaving Angelos as the only owner that I know of as requiring stake in tv rights from an expansion team.

 

Quote

In regards to MASN, yeah, it's a piece of ****, I won't argue there.

 

And that should be enough for any self respecting DMV baseball fan to make Angelos verboten.

 

Quote

Outside of being miserable franchise owners, what they've done in their professional careers and as people, Angelos wins (in a positive manner) by miles.  And it's not even particularly close.

 

Lol.  Not much of an accomplishment given Danny boy's resume before owning the team.  Nevertheless, Angelos' stunt in the Phillip Morris suit alone taints his personal accomplishment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Manfred is terrible, but I think they'll keep going.  He won't want to admit defeat and he won't want to not have a season where a World Series (no matter how watered down it is) wasn't played on his watch.   They'll come up with something like opening up the player pool, roster sizes, etc.  

 

And among the sports leagues, I don't think anyone wants to be the first one to be able to not complete a season and raise a white flag.  

 

 

This is why I just can't get into this season. The empty stands, teams that have played half the number of games as others, its really a mess.

 

Im sure Manfried will try to shoe horn the season in as much as he can, I just don't see how he's going to realistically make up weeks worth of games in such a short time period.

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

Yeah, that's a brain fart.  But DC didn't require a pound of flesh from Ravens or Panthers, leaving Angelos as the only owner that I know of as requiring stake in tv rights from an expansion team.

 

To be fair, the NFL doesn't have the local TV networks set up like baseball and revenue sharing is entirely different. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

To be fair, the NFL doesn't have the local TV networks set up like baseball and revenue sharing is entirely different. 

 

NFL allows each team to keep 100% of local media revenue while MLB allows teams to only keep 34%.  DC had every financial incentive to oppose losing their foothold in Baltimore and Carolina.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Yet legions of expansion teams have been established without entering into the marriage from hell that is MASN.  Thanks Angelos and Selig, you spineless moron.

 

 

Yeah, that's a brain fart.  But DC didn't require a pound of flesh from Ravens or Panthers, leaving Angelos as the only owner that I know of as requiring stake in tv rights from an expansion team.

 

 

And that should be enough for any self respecting DMV baseball fan to make Angelos verboten.

 

 

Lol.  Not much of an accomplishment given Danny boy's resume before owning the team.  Nevertheless, Angelos' stunt in the Phillip Morris suit alone taints his personal accomplishment.  

 

Find one expansion team in any sport (or a team that's relocated) as close as the Nats came to Baltimore that didn't have opposition from the already established team.  For the record, I personally didn't care that the Nats moved in, I thought it was a good thing and I wanted a NL team to root for.  That never really worked out as following two teams closely was too much but I wanted DC to have a baseball team.

 

Anyway, pretty sure DC couldn't require a pound of flesh from the Ravens or Panthers due to how the TV rights work.  MLB unfortunately still revolves around regional sports networks while the NFL has relationships with Fox and CBS.  

 

I get it, if your gripe is MASN and how bad it is, no argument from me.  The fact that there's no streaming is stupid and the fact that there are blackouts is stupid, too.  Yet the Nationals have had a top 10 payroll each year from at least 2016-2019 and are 12th this year.  Seems like the Nats are doing just fine.

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

NFL allows each team to keep 100% of local media revenue while MLB allows teams to only keep 34%.  DC had every financial incentive to oppose losing their foothold in Baltimore and Carolina.

 

As I stated before, Jack Kent Cooke fought to keep Baltimore from getting a team.  

 

Quote

Mr. Cooke also developed a reputation for getting his way, sometimes by ruthlessly brushing aside opposition. His impatience with the pace of negotiations over his stadium plans sent him on a nine-year search for a place to build the project, taking him through Washington, Virginia and several sites in Maryland. Community groups fought him at every turn.

Among those he crossed was former Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor William Donald Schaefer, who tirelessly strove to return the NFL to his city. Mr. Cooke opposed a competing team 30 miles north of his own, and, Mr. Schaefer says, helped dash the city's chances of getting an expansion team in 1993.

"He was very polite and well-mannered. He liked to talk about his youth, about growing up in Canada. But when we started to talk about football, the atmosphere changed," Mr. Schaefer said.

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-04-07-1997097085-story.html

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I get it, if your gripe is MASN and how bad it is, no argument from me.  The fact that there's no streaming is stupid and the fact that there are blackouts is stupid, too.  Yet the Nationals have had a top 10 payroll each year from at least 2016-2019 and are 12th this year.  Seems like the Nats are doing just fine.

 

I stream the games just fine on MLB.tv, granted I'm way out of market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Find one expansion team in any sport (or a team that's relocated) as close as the Nats came to Baltimore that didn't have opposition from the already established team.  For the record, I personally didn't care that the Nats moved in, I thought it was a good thing and I wanted a NL team to root for.  That never really worked out as following two teams closely was too much but I wanted DC to have a baseball team.

 

What did the Dodgers get from the Angels expansion?  Yankees from the Mets?  Giants from the A's?  There's a difference between opposing it and threatening lawsuit and only relenting when given overwhelming majority stake in relocating team's tv revenue.  Especially considering that DC had a baseball team for the first 60 years of 1900s.

 

Quote

Anyway, pretty sure DC couldn't require a pound of flesh from the Ravens or Panthers due to how the TV rights work.  MLB unfortunately still revolves around regional sports networks while the NFL has relationships with Fox and CBS.  

 

Teams keep their local revenue.  Which is why Dallas makes magnitudes more profit than other teams and why DC was one of the most valuable franchises for a while.

 

Quote

I get it, if your gripe is MASN and how bad it is, no argument from me.  The fact that there's no streaming is stupid and the fact that there are blackouts is stupid, too.  Yet the Nationals have had a top 10 payroll each year from at least 2016-2019 and are 12th this year.  Seems like the Nats are doing just fine.

 

If you don't think the Nats getting screwed in the MASN deal and MASN withholding 30 mil from them every year while bitterly fighting tooth and nails through arbitration and lawsuit didn't have a negative effect on their ability to spend, you haven't been paying attention.  DC market size only lags behind NY, LA, and Chicago.  Of course they should have a top 10 payroll.

 

Quote

As I stated before, Jack Kent Cooke fought to keep Baltimore from getting a team.  

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-04-07-1997097085-story.html

 

Yet in the end, Baltimore got a team without any compensation to DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

I stream the games just fine on MLB.tv, granted I'm way out of market.

 

I stream them on MLB.tv, I just use a VPN to get around the blackout.  They're still getting my money, I don't care.

 

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

What did the Dodgers get from the Angels expansion?  Yankees from the Mets?  Giants from the A's?  There's a difference between opposing it and threatening lawsuit and only relenting when given overwhelming majority stake in relocating team's tv revenue.  Especially considering that DC had a baseball team for the first 60 years of 1900s.

 

 

I don't believe they were battling out for cable rights and regional sports networks in the 60s when those teams were introduced.

 

But since you asked, here's what Walter O'Malley did to Gene Autry:

 

Quote

 

But O’Malley exacted a stiff price. The new team would have to pay him $350,000 for a ticket of admission to enter Los Angeles. Instead of sharing the 90,000-seat LA Coliseum with the Dodgers, the American League club would play its first season in the city’s minor-league ballpark, Wrigley Field, with room for about 22,000. That ensured that the team would lose money. Beginning in 1962, it would be O’Malley’s tenant in his new park, under construction at Chavez Ravine, paying a minimum $200,000 in rent, or 7.5 percent of gate receipts. O’Malley would keep all parking revenue and some of the take from concessions.

In addition, O’Malley didn’t want competition from television. He televised only 11 Dodger games ­— those in San Francisco against the archrival Giants ­— and the new club was limited to the same number.

All told, Autry estimated the deal was worth $750,000 a year to the Dodgers. After a meeting with O’Malley that lasted nearly all night, he agreed to pay. It was the price of doing business.15

 

 

 

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/gene-autry/

 

I'm not sure why the Giants didn't try to do anything to get something from the A's.  They lost 400,000 in attendance the next year and slowly sold off all their star players, eventually getting down to Willie Mays and shipping him to the Mets.  Quite frankly, the A's moving to Oakland and impeding on the Giants territory was terrible for them.  Horace Stoneham wasn't cold blooded, not like O'Malley was and certainly not a litigious **** like Angelos is.  Even the Yankees lost 250,000 in attendance from 1961 to 1962 while the Mets drew 922,000 in their first year.  But NYC had supported three teams at one point and the Yankees dominated everything then, I'm not sure they cared.  

 

Put aside your feelings that you're from the DMV and wanted a baseball team here and the mean lawyer who owned the team up the road tried to block that from happening, and when he couldn't, he created a terrible television deal. 

 

Again, I ask...if you're an MLB owner and expansion wants to put a new team a few miles away from you, or someone wants to move a team into your territory...do you act like the Giants owner, Horace Stoneham, who did nothing and let the new team eat into his profits?  Or do you put up a fight?

 

Quote

If you don't think the Nats getting screwed in the MASN deal and MASN withholding 30 mil from them every year while bitterly fighting tooth and nails through arbitration and lawsuit didn't have a negative effect on their ability to spend, you haven't been paying attention.  DC market size only lags behind NY, LA, and Chicago.  Of course they should have a top 10 payroll.

 

DC also ranks behind DFW, Philly and the Bay Area.

 

But if you want to keep griping about how the Nats got screwed by an arbiter, again, I get it.  But I typically don't feel sorry for teams in any sport that routinely have top 10 payrolls no matter what the situation is.  The Red Sox were at $213 million last year and finished third while the Rays spent $68 million and made the playoffs.  It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it.  The Nats were at $181 million last year and from the looks of it, it paid off just fine for them.  Would all of that money that they got screwed on by an arbiter have put them over the hump in previous years?  I'm sure every Nats fan here would like to think so because....hey, even the top 10 payroll teams like to play the little guy card.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Autry's deal

 

Autry's deal is apples and oranges because it's not in perpetuity.  He could and did get out of it by getting his own ballpark.  If Nats had the option of getting out of MASN, even after a fixed number of years, the situation would be comparable.

 

Quote

Put aside your feelings that you're from the DMV and wanted a baseball team here and the mean lawyer who owned the team up the road tried to block that from happening, and when he couldn't, he created a terrible television deal. 

 

Again, I ask...if you're an MLB owner and expansion wants to put a new team a few miles away from you, or someone wants to move a team into your territory...do you act like the Giants owner, Horace Stoneham, who did nothing and let the new team eat into his profits?  Or do you put up a fight?

 

One, the Nats relocation is much more compelling then a new team in the same city because DC has had baseball for more years of the 1900s than it did not.  Angelos had no right to expect that he would continue to enjoy exclusivity over the DC market.  The 30 years of vacuum were the windfall and anomaly, not the other way around.

 

Second, self interest does not justify every action.  By that logic, you have nothing to complain about when the rich and the powerful lobbies Congress for a sweetheart deal while screwing the middle class.  After all, it means millions or billions in benefits for them.  Why should we rail against that when it's just motivated by self interest.

 

Quote

DC also ranks behind DFW, Philly and the Bay Area.

 

But if you want to keep griping about how the Nats got screwed by an arbiter, again, I get it.  But I typically don't feel sorry for teams in any sport that routinely have top 10 payrolls no matter what the situation is.  The Red Sox were at $213 million last year and finished third while the Rays spent $68 million and made the playoffs.  It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it.  The Nats were at $181 million last year and from the looks of it, it paid off just fine for them.  Would all of that money that they got screwed on by an arbiter have put them over the hump in previous years?  I'm sure every Nats fan here would like to think so because....hey, even the top 10 payroll teams like to play the little guy card.

 

NY, LA, Chi are clearly bigger.  Other metro areas are of comparable size.  

 

Again, if you don't care about what's fair and reasonable, then you'd have no problem with the MASN deal (though you somehow manage to sympathize with Angelos and fret over his lost profit stemming from baseball's 30 year absence in DC.  Pretty sure Angelos isn't exactly hurting for money either).

Edited by bearrock
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

One, the Nats relocation is much more compelling then a new team in the same city because DC has had baseball for more years of the 1900s than it did not.  Angelos had no right to expect that he would continue to enjoy exclusivity over the DC market.  The 30 years of vacuum were the windfall and anomaly, not the other way around.

 

Second, self interest does not justify every action.  By that logic, you have nothing to complain about when the rich and the powerful lobbies Congress for a sweetheart deal while screwing the middle class.  After all, it means millions or billions in benefits for them.  Why should we rail against that when it's just motivated by self interest.

 

 

 

 

Well, we can continue to do the false equivalency thing, I guess.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CRobi21 said:

Eaton looks completely lost at the plate. Either he's hurt or the ball is a blur..

 

To be fair so does everyone not named Castro, Soto, or Kendrick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...