|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 14:13:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 17, 2021 14:21:43 GMT -5
Yeah, been reading about it the past couple of days. Going to be quite the payday for Ron Burkle, who put $22MM into the team back in 1999, and Mario Lemieux, who took the ownership stake in lieu of unpaid salary he was owed.
Mixed feelings about it. Sure, FSG has deep pockets and a good track record with the Red Sox (yuck) and Liverpool (yuck yuckity yuck, although not as much yuck as ManU), but now the Pens are just part of a portfolio, not the focal point of the ownership group.
Going to be interesting how they deal with Evgeni Malkin and Kris Letang at the trade deadline this season. Both will be UFA after the season, and while the current owners may have felt it important to let them finish their careers in a Penguins sweater, the new owners probably have no such compunction toward sentimentality.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 14:34:57 GMT -5
Yeah, been reading about it the past couple of days. Going to be quite the payday for Ron Burkle, who put $22MM into the team back in 1999, and Mario Lemieux, who took the ownership stake in lieu of unpaid salary he was owed. Mixed feelings about it. Sure, FSG has deep pockets and a good track record with the Red Sox (yuck) and Liverpool (yuck yuckity yuck, although not as much yuck as ManU), but now the Pens are just part of a portfolio, not the focal point of the ownership group. Going to be interesting how they deal with Evgeni Malkin and Kris Letang at the trade deadline this season. Both will be UFA after the season, and while the current owners may have felt it important to let them finish their careers in a Penguins sweater, the new owners probably have no such compunction toward sentimentality. I doubt that even if the deal gets finalized, which it isn't, and with the length of time it would take the NHL owners to actually approve it once finalized, that the ownership group would take over this season. I would think the off-season and the 2022-2023 season is the more likely timeline of when FSG would take over if the deal moves forward, so I doubt the impending FA of Malkin and Letang and the trade deadline will even be a factor in the ownership transition. -M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 17, 2021 15:37:21 GMT -5
I did see this and as The Captain says below, it's yet another reminder that the days of even token local ownership are gone for good, which is just, well, not great. Yes, the Sox (YAY! ) have benefited immensely from the Henry/Fenway group ownership, which also includes a racing team and the Boston Globe, but this kind of ownership, with an enormously expensive portfolio, means that there is no real jewel in the crown, so that as a fan, you always have to worry where the ownership's heart -- read: wallet -- actually is.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 17, 2021 18:16:37 GMT -5
Wanted to add this, and forgot.
The lure here to buying up franchises is the increased importance of legit gambling to sports. And Pennsylvania just happens to trail only one state (NJ) in the amount of money gambled on sports annually, over 700 million bucks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 18:40:18 GMT -5
Just for some perspective, the Penguins are valued at $845 million.
The naming rights for the LA arena where the Lakers and Clippers play formerly known as the Staples Center just sold for $700 million and will now be called Crypto.com Arena.
NHL teams are a bargain comparatively to other major sports league franchises, and many of them are cash strapped coming out of the pandemic so an owner, like the Lemieux group in Pitt who accepted a $4.8 Paycheck Protection Loan from the federal government in 2020 to keep operating, would be foolish not to cash out when the money is on the table since they lost money the last 2 years and attendance is down again this year due to the pandemic (their string of successive sellouts was broken earlier this year). Groups like the Fenway group can expect things to rebound in a year or two and make their money back and then some as they are in essence "buying low" right now, but the sellers are still selling way up from their purchase price twenty odd years ago. The spread of the legalization of sports betting is certainly a factor groups like the Fenway Group are looking at in potential growth, but they stand to make a lot in a post-pandemic recovery. The Fenway group is also looking at a loss of potential revenue from the Red Sox if there is an extended lockout and impasse in CBA negotiations with the player's union this offseason as the CBA expires on Dec 1 and there is a huge gap and a lot of issues between the sides that are nowhere near resolution so there's a chance a good part of the 2022 MLB season could be lost with all the lost revenue that entails, so adding another revenue source in the meantime is good business on their part. As for dedicated local ownership for one team, ask the Cincinnati Bengals with notorious cheapskate Mike Brown how that has worked out or teams like the Houston Texans with their lunatic owner using the team as his political and religious agenda organ how that is working out for them. Or how abut Dan Snyder is Washington...? Some owners may be more invested, but more often they view the team and its employees as their personal playground and run things like they are some kind of feudal lord and it is their demesne and a lot of people get treated like shit because of their lack of professionalism stemming from their wealth and privilege. I'd rather an owner like the Fenway Group that operates like a business than an owner who acts like a petty tyrant using the team for his own self-aggrandizement.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 17, 2021 18:52:57 GMT -5
Just for some perspective, the Penguins are valued at $845 million. The naming rights for the LA arena where the Lakers and Clippers play formerly known as the Staples Center just sold for $700 million and will now be called Crypto.com Arena. NHL teams are a bargain comparatively to other major sports league franchises, and many of them are cash strapped coming out of the pandemic so an owner, like the Lemieux group in Pitt who accepted a $4.8 Paycheck Protection Loan from the federal government in 2020 to keep operating, would be foolish not to cash out when the money is on the table since they lost money the last 2 years and attendance is down again this year due to the pandemic (their string of successive sellouts was broken earlier this year). Groups like the Fenway group can expect things to rebound in a year or two and make their money back and then some as they are in essence "buying low" right now, but the sellers are still selling way up from their purchase price twenty odd years ago. The spread of the legalization of sports betting is certainly a factor groups like the Fenway Group are looking at in potential growth, but they stand to make a lot in a post-pandemic recovery. The Fenway group is also looking at a loss of potential revenue from the Red Sox if there is an extended lockout and impasse in CBA negotiations with the player's union this offseason as the CBA expires on Dec 1 and there is a huge gap and a lot of issues between the sides that are nowhere near resolution so there's a chance a good part of the 2022 MLB season could be lost with all the lost revenue that entails, so adding another revenue source in the meantime is good business on their part. As for dedicated local ownership for one team, ask the Cincinnati Bengals with notorious cheapskate Mike Brown how that has worked out or teams like the Houston Texans with their lunatic owner using the team as his political and religious agenda organ how that is working out for them. Or how abut Dan Snyder is Washington...? Some owners may be more invested, but more often they view the team and its employees as their personal playground and run things like they are some kind of feudal lord and it is their demesne and a lot of people get treated like shit because of their lack of professionalism stemming from their wealth and privilege. I'd rather an owner like the Fenway Group that operates like a business than an owner who acts like a petty tyrant using the team for his own self-aggrandizement. -M Yeah, having a local owner these days doesn't guarantee any connection to tradition, respect for the fans, or regard for the city or region, I know. We long ago lost the notion that a team is a local institution and/or that an owner has loyalty to anyoe but himself or his fellow owners. The Lincoln Memorial will likely be known one day as the Bezos Lincoln Memorial. At least Fenway is still Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 19:01:37 GMT -5
Just for some perspective, the Penguins are valued at $845 million. The naming rights for the LA arena where the Lakers and Clippers play formerly known as the Staples Center just sold for $700 million and will now be called Crypto.com Arena. NHL teams are a bargain comparatively to other major sports league franchises, and many of them are cash strapped coming out of the pandemic so an owner, like the Lemieux group in Pitt who accepted a $4.8 Paycheck Protection Loan from the federal government in 2020 to keep operating, would be foolish not to cash out when the money is on the table since they lost money the last 2 years and attendance is down again this year due to the pandemic (their string of successive sellouts was broken earlier this year). Groups like the Fenway group can expect things to rebound in a year or two and make their money back and then some as they are in essence "buying low" right now, but the sellers are still selling way up from their purchase price twenty odd years ago. The spread of the legalization of sports betting is certainly a factor groups like the Fenway Group are looking at in potential growth, but they stand to make a lot in a post-pandemic recovery. The Fenway group is also looking at a loss of potential revenue from the Red Sox if there is an extended lockout and impasse in CBA negotiations with the player's union this offseason as the CBA expires on Dec 1 and there is a huge gap and a lot of issues between the sides that are nowhere near resolution so there's a chance a good part of the 2022 MLB season could be lost with all the lost revenue that entails, so adding another revenue source in the meantime is good business on their part. As for dedicated local ownership for one team, ask the Cincinnati Bengals with notorious cheapskate Mike Brown how that has worked out or teams like the Houston Texans with their lunatic owner using the team as his political and religious agenda organ how that is working out for them. Or how abut Dan Snyder is Washington...? Some owners may be more invested, but more often they view the team and its employees as their personal playground and run things like they are some kind of feudal lord and it is their demesne and a lot of people get treated like shit because of their lack of professionalism stemming from their wealth and privilege. I'd rather an owner like the Fenway Group that operates like a business than an owner who acts like a petty tyrant using the team for his own self-aggrandizement. -M Yeah, having a local owner these days doesn't guarantee any connection to tradition, respect for the fans, or regard for the city or region, I know. We long ago lost the notion that a team is a local institution and/or that an owner has loyalty to anyoe but himself or his fellow owners. The Lincoln Memorial will likely be known one day as the Bezos Lincoln Memorial. At least Fenway is still Fenway. And if the Penguins are bought, the NHL has a 7 year moratorium on moving teams upon change of ownership, so the city of Pittsburgh won't have to worry about them moving to a more lucrative market for a while. The Lemieux group was instrumental in keeping the team in Pitt a while back, but the terms they got have since been passed by in terms of helping teams and smaller markets like Pittsburgh might have to fend off more lucrative markets for their teams in the coming years. -M
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 17, 2021 21:04:23 GMT -5
Yeah, having a local owner these days doesn't guarantee any connection to tradition, respect for the fans, or regard for the city or region, I know. We long ago lost the notion that a team is a local institution and/or that an owner has loyalty to anyoe but himself or his fellow owners. The Lincoln Memorial will likely be known one day as the Bezos Lincoln Memorial. At least Fenway is still Fenway. And if the Penguins are bought, the NHL has a 7 year moratorium on moving teams upon change of ownership, so the city of Pittsburgh won't have to worry about them moving to a more lucrative market for a while. The Lemieux group was instrumental in keeping the team in Pitt a while back, but the terms they got have since been passed by in terms of helping teams and smaller markets like Pittsburgh might have to fend off more lucrative markets for their teams in the coming years. -M Bolded part is true to a point, but the Lemieux group also held the city/state hostage by threatening to move the team to Kansas City (where the NHL had already failed once) if he didn't get a new arena, so he isn't the pure white knight that folks would like to believe he is. As for "more lucrative markets" going after the Penguins, the team sold out every game for years and is the preferred team of the younger demographic in the city (the Steelers are now viewed as "your father's team" by and large), so I would highly doubt the owners could make that much more moving to a new city. It also wouldn't be like the NHL letting a new-ish failed expansion team such as the Atlanta Thrashers go to Winnipeg or WHA refugee teams in smaller-than-Pittsburgh markets (OG Winnipeg Jets, Quebec Nordiques, Hartford Whalers) move to bigger cities, while the Pens have been here for 55 years and have 5 Stanley Cups, which is more than any other team except the Original Six teams (excluding the New York Rangers) and the same as the Edmonton Oilers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 0:10:22 GMT -5
Prince Halnot sure if you saw this but shortly before the lockdown went into effect the Red Sox traded Hunter Renfroe to reacquire Jackie Bradley Jr. and a pair of prospects. I know JBJ had a terrible year in Milwaukee, and Renfroe had a career type year in Boston before all but disappearing in the post-season. I liked Renfore and his cannon. JBJ was one of my favorites when he was with Boston, but could never seem to put it all together as a hitter. Not sure how I feel about this move but I hope a return to Fenway revitalizes JBJ. -M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 2, 2021 11:18:28 GMT -5
Prince Hal not sure if you saw this but shortly before the lockdown went into effect the Red Sox traded Hunter Renfroe to reacquire Jackie Bradley Jr. and a pair of prospects. I know JBJ had a terrible year in Milwaukee, and Renfroe had a career type year in Boston before all but disappearing in the post-season. I liked Renfore and his cannon. JBJ was one of my favorites when he was with Boston, but could never seem to put it all together as a hitter. Not sure how I feel about this move but I hope a return to Fenway revitalizes JBJ. -M Thanks for the heads up, @mrp; I hadn't seen this last night. Surprising in some ways. I figured Renfroe would be going in a sell-high kind of move. He had a decent year, but came up empty way too often at the plate, particularly in the playoffs (7 for 36, 0 RBI). He's easy to pitch to because he never seems to have a plan at the plate beyond guessing fastball. Yes, he has power, but he's an all-or-nothing type most of the time.
But I think, on top of the money they would have had to pay him, the Sox saw the real Renfroe in the field and realized that he was not going to change. He literally made 12 errors that negated the effect of his 16 assists. He very quickly showed that he has neither the instincts nor the head to play even an average outfield; he loved showing off that cannon of an arm, which was at times devastatingly accurate, but which more often gave opposing runners extra bass. Clearly the coaching staff could not get through to him, either. For an organization as data-conscious as the Sox have become, Renfroe was not going to be a fit.
Not sure what the Sox are thinking,though reacquiring Jackie, who was and is the complete opposite of Renfroe in the field, an artist really, but they can't be thinking of platooning him with Hernandez in CF, because as a left-handed hitter, JBJ would see the lion's share of AB's. They can't hand him the CF job, b/c his hitting is so poor. Right now Sox have no one in LF. Schwarber is not the answer there, and neither is JD, obviously. If Arroyo can stay on the field, he can play second and Hernandez can remain in CF, and Verdugo can play LF or RF, but unless they have a real shake-up in mind (Dalbec to LF?), I don't see where this is going.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 11:36:44 GMT -5
Prince Hal not sure if you saw this but shortly before the lockdown went into effect the Red Sox traded Hunter Renfroe to reacquire Jackie Bradley Jr. and a pair of prospects. I know JBJ had a terrible year in Milwaukee, and Renfroe had a career type year in Boston before all but disappearing in the post-season. I liked Renfore and his cannon. JBJ was one of my favorites when he was with Boston, but could never seem to put it all together as a hitter. Not sure how I feel about this move but I hope a return to Fenway revitalizes JBJ. -M Thanks for the heads up, @mrp; I hadn't seen this last night. Surprising in some ways. I figured Renfroe would be going in a sell-high kind of move. He had a decent year, but came up empty way too often at the plate, particularly in the playoffs (7 for 36, 0 RBI). He's easy to pitch to because he never seems to have a plan at the plate beyond guessing fastball. Yes, he has power, but he's an all-or-nothing type most of the time.
But I think, on top of the money they would have had to pay him, the Sox saw the real Renfroe in the field and realized that he was not going to change. He literally made 12 errors that negated the effect of his 16 assists. He very quickly showed that he has neither the instincts nor the head to play even an average outfield; he loved showing off that cannon of an arm, which was at times devastatingly accurate, but which more often gave opposing runners extra bass. Clearly the coaching staff could not get through to him, either. For an organization as data-conscious as the Sox have become, Renfroe was not going to be a fit.
Not sure what the Sox are thinking,though reacquiring Jackie, who was and is the complete opposite of Renfroe in the field, an artist really, but they can't be thinking of platooning him with Hernandez in CF, because as a left-handed hitter, JBJ would see the lion's share of AB's. They can't hand him the CF job, b/c his hitting is so poor. Right now Sox have no one in LF. Schwarber is not the answer there, and neither is JD, obviously. If Arroyo can stay on the field, he can play second and Hernandez can remain in CF, and Verdugo can play LF or RF, but unless they have a real shake-up in mind (Dalbec to LF?), I don't see where this is going.
I think Duran is going to get a long look in LF next season. Verdugo in right. Jackie in center on days Kiki plays second, coming in late for defense on days Kiki plays center, maybe in right moving Verdugo to left and spelling whomever is playing LF that day (JD, Kyle, Dalbec or whomever). They can also play JBJ in right at Fenway with Kiki in center and Verdugo in LF. Dalbec could see some time in left as well if he is not dealt, especially if Casas is close to being ready. But they are really high on Duran even though his cup of tea late last season was less than spectacular. And they still want to sign Schwaber, and if they do and want both JD and Kyle in the line up, one will wind up in LF more often than not moreso than at 1B, especially in NL parks unless universal DH is adopted in the new CBA. But I see them using JBJ as more their 4th outfielder unless and until he shows some sign of regaining his groove at the plate after last season. However, it's all moot until a new CBA is reached. I don't see it happening soon though. They negotiated for a grand total of 7 minutes yesterday before both sides walked away from the table. We all know they will come to some kind of financial compromise, and it won't be any different if they reach it in March than it would have been if they had gotten it done in October. It's about their egos and pride and which side is going to blink first and be the "loser" of the negotiations and which side will be the "winner" when the insanely rich square off with the mega rich. The only losers are the fans and the game of baseball, but the owners and the players value their pride over both of those, so we're locked out for who knows how long. I don't see pitchers and catchers reporting on time. I do see them rushing some kind of agreement to start on time though, so as not to lose money, which means spring training will get truncated, players and teams won't be baseball ready and we will see some very ugly baseball early on, and likely several severe injuries, particularly to pitchers, who won't be physically in shape and ready for the grind of an MLB season because each side had to have their egos stroked and was too proud to be the one that blinked and made concessions first. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2021 13:45:56 GMT -5
I don’t subscribe to the WALL STREET JOURNAL (I presume they are behind a paywall?) but this tweet’s headline was pretty cool to read:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2021 10:37:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Dec 29, 2021 15:06:38 GMT -5
It's looking like David Ortiz is the only player on the ballot with a chance to get elected this year. I suspect he'll fall short and get in next year, though. Curt Schilling's numbers have dropped. He ain't getting in. He should have been elected before he opened his big, fat mouth, anyway. The "character clause" drives me crazy. It's always used as a reason not to for for a player but it's never used as a reason to vote for a player. Basically, it's a fudge factor to allow voters to not vote for somebody that they don't like.
|
|