There was an article in Friday’s Richmond Times Dispatch stating that
A Richmond group hopes to buy a franchise that belongs to the Class AA Eastern League, the Connecticut Defenders, and move it to Richmond, according to sources familiar with the situation.
If this rumor is true, the Defenders would move to Richmond for the 2010 season.
What does this mean for the Nationals and their opportunity to move into the Richmond market?
First, even if it happens, it won’t be until the 2011 season at the earliest. The Connecticut Defenders have an affiliation agreement with the San Francisco Giants and the Nats with Harrisburg Senators through the 2010 season.
The question then is whether the Richmond market is more valuable than the Harrisburg market. One of the primary reasons the Braves left Richmond was due to inadequate facilities. The Richmond facilities have still not been upgraded (or are there any rumors it’s going to happen). Given the financial situation that exists across the country, I’m not sure state funds are going to be available for what most would consider a luxury. Meanwhile, Harrisburg is currently renovating the park on City Island (check out photos at ). It appears from a facilities-POV, Harrisburg has the most merit in the near term.
The next question is fan-base. Harrisburg and Richmond are nearly equidistant from Washington DC, so there is not an advantage from an accessibility standpoint (though I would hazard a guess that the drive from Harrisburg is less congested than the drive from Richmond). It makes sense for the Nationals to expand their reach into southern Virginia but is it worth the cost of sacrificing a foothold in central Pennsylvania? The optimal solution still remains establishing Richmond as a Triple-A affiliate but there are no cities in the International League looking to drop down a level (or disband) to open a spot for that.
My guess is that if the Defenders are moved to Richmond, we’ll see the Nationals shift their Double-A affiliate to Richmond after the 2010 season. I would hate to lose the Harrisburg market but I believe the Nationals see a greater value in expanding their reach into Virginia than hanging onto Pennsylvania.
#1 by Sue Dinem - February 15th, 2009 at 10:09
The Richmond facilities have still not been upgraded (or are there any rumors it’s going to happen)
FWIW, His Eminence at Ballpark Digest has mentioned that the folks looking to buy the Defenders, nee The Norwich Navigators, and move them into the Diamond for next year. He also noted:
…originally proposed building a new ballpark in Richmond’s Shockoe Bottom area, but over time that proposal morphed into a plan for tax-increment financing to fund a new ballpark overseen by a traditional stadium authority. Bills approving the tax-increment financing have passed the state House and Senate, but in a telling detail the legislation would allow for either a new ballpark or the renovation of The Diamond.
Given the track record of the Virginia Assembly, which has 19th-century values when it comes to taxation, I have my doubts that such funding will ever come to pass. And that’s even if the developers lower their sights to simply renovating The Diamond.
#2 by Dale - February 15th, 2009 at 11:01
In reality, just how big is the Harrisburg market? Isn’t there a built in bias there towards the Phillies, Pirates and even Orioles? Richmond’s closest major league market is definitely Washington. They should take advantage of this.
#3 by estuartj - February 15th, 2009 at 11:39
I wish the clubs had more control over their minor league franchise. I think there is a long tradition of just supplying the talent and letting the locals deal with the business. In the end this is a terriblly inefficient use of resources.
If a team, maybe even ours, were to start aquiring it’s minor league affiliates they would have enormous flexibility to maximize the minor league experience for fans AND players. We focus closely on proximity, but there is so much more to using your minor league team then just the distance involves, cross branding, group ticket packages…the options are limitless. On the cheap side you could do a lot with the high-A/AA being so close together and the two sharing so many players over a season.
Fans get attached to players and will follow those players all through their careers, they key is to introduce the client to the product and continuing their access to the product for as long as possible to maximize brand loyalty.
#4 by Mark F.` - February 15th, 2009 at 19:13
There are too many memories created dating back to the days of Matt Stairs, G-man and forward. Good fan base in Harrisburg who Reading hates with a great rivalry. Nice booster club support for kids coming up the pipeline.
#5 by Mark F.` - February 15th, 2009 at 19:16
An Eastern League championship under John Stearns would silence all this Richmond “hot stove in February ” talk. Plus, you cannot beat the atmosphere in summertime walking across an old railbridge to a baseball park set on an island with a childspark. as the credit card ad says- priceless! Plus that hitters park lends confidence to the kids coming up the pipeline. sushi on Second Ave, too. ALL walking distance from parking in town.
#6 by Terry Byrom - February 15th, 2009 at 20:14
Brian, Mark et. al.
This will be an interesting conversation for quite some time. First off, whether the Senators win a championship this year or not will have nothing to do with continuing a relationship. Whether the Senators are tied to the Nationals or not, there will be a team on City Island in the Eastern League. So Mark, even if the Nationals make Richmond their AA team, someone will be in Harrisburg.
Sometimes I think many very smart baseball fans have no idea just how much work and planning goes into a baseball season from a front office point of view. We had a training session this week and roughly 50,000 hours of work/planning goes into a season (that’s number of employees x number of hours worked in off season). To think a major league franchise would want to try to have several teams market things together, it just doesn’t work that way.
If it were “easy” and really helped develop players, don’t you think more teams would own their minor league franchises? When all is said and done, are we are is a place for their players to improve and get better. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
#7 by Jeff E. - February 15th, 2009 at 20:25
My friend in Harrisburg says the architect designs for the ballpark refurbishing on City Isle is going to be amazing. Lets just focus on how the bullpen meshes together in the next 6 months. LOL!
#8 by Terry Byrom - February 15th, 2009 at 20:33
Jeff and everyone,
There are renderings on our website at http://www.senatorsbaseball.com along with pictures of the construction progress posted every Tuesday and Friday.
#9 by Mark L - February 15th, 2009 at 21:40
Thanks Terry. It’s people like you and Danny Hicks that provide such valuable insight that we wouldn’t otherwise have Keep it up!
#10 by estuartj - February 15th, 2009 at 21:58
If the MLB club owned the MiLB affiliates it wouldn’t be any more or less work, the only question would be who the people doing that work are employed by. I think the reason more clubs don’t try to acquire their affiliates is that don’t want to take on the financial obligation and don’t believe the benefits outweight the risk.
I disagree with this notion and believe the potential marketing advantages far outweigh the minimal (in MLB dollars) costs involved. The clubs are used to doing things in the traditional way and are going to be very hesitant (especially in this economy) to chage their business model regarding affiates.
#11 by Terry Byrom - February 16th, 2009 at 08:40
Actually in the past, more teams did own their minor league franchises.
I’m not sure what difference it would make in the long term if the Nationals owned the team in Vermont? Or if the Giants owned the Connecticut Defenders? Given in California there is only a High A league and two AAA teams, those MLB teams would be owning MiLB franchises all over the country!?!?
You keep talking about the potential marketing, but I’m not sure what you are speaking of!?!?
As an example, for the past two seasons State College (rookie Pirates) and Altoona (AA Pirates) were owned by the same group. There was no “cross promotions” they were simply owned by the same person. Some of the employees and interns worked at both locations, but to be viable, they both needed to draw X number fans.
Lastly, please keep in mind that everyone here is in the minority when it comes to following baseball. How well do you think a MiLB team would draw if it was just about baseball?!? Not well, that’s how. 85% of the fans that attend MiLB games are NOT attending for the “baseball” rather for the entertainment. And I’m guessing, that is probably pretty close in the big leagues now too, or the big leagues wouldn’t be doing so many things the minors have done for so long.
#12 by Sue Dinem - February 16th, 2009 at 10:23
Actually, the Atlanta Braves own all their affiliates except Myrtle Beach and I’m willing to bet the only reason they don’t own Myrtle Beach is because they were unwilling to sell to them.
IIRC, Atlanta did this shortly after the 1991 PDC agreement because they foresaw what ultimately ended up happening: As cities were made to compete to build ballparks (especially since the number of teams was frozen at 160), the price of franchises skyrocketed. Atlanta undoubtedly got its teams for a fraction of what they would cost now, even in this economy.
As for marketing, folks here are both right and wrong. There are some advantages for a franchise like Washington which is trying to make inroads into the an area that’s largely had to root for teams to the north (Baltimore, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh) and is populated with a lot of transplants (ahem).
But Connecticut actually is a perfect example of how the affiliation is more important to the franchise than vice-versa. When they were known as the Norwich Navigators and were affiliated with the Yankees, attendance was in the 220-280K range. After the switch, attendance dropped 29% and just cracked 200,000 this past season.
Consequently, teams can use this leverage when PDCs expire. Primarily, they use it to ensure that their players play in suitable facilities [insert Suns and PNats jokes here] which franchises should be doing anyway because it’s become an expected part of the experience that Terry refers to when characterizing the average MiLB fan (and even pre-renovation, City Island was pretty damn good).
Simply put, I’d put my money on Harrisburg retaining its affiliation with Washington first, remaining in the Eastern League second, and remaining in affiliated baseball third, and keeping professional baseball fourth (let’s face it - the Atlantic League would love to put an expansion team there if they were ever given the chance).
#13 by estuartj - February 16th, 2009 at 11:57
From today’s MLBTR:
“There have been rumblings that Major League Baseball, which is aware that Type A free agents like Juan Cruz and infielders Orlando Hudson and Orlando Cabrera have been hindered by the compensation rules, are willing to make it easier for teams to sign then trade those free agents.”
Not sure what MLB can do to help this (the article mentions giving their approval, which I don’t think amounts to a hill of beans), but maybe they can at least give teams cover to do a sign and trade “in the open” making deals more likely.
Could mean our top pick in the 2nd round could move up a few more slots. Not that it matters a whole lot, but every bit helps I suppose.
#14 by Brian Oliver - February 16th, 2009 at 12:49
I was discussing that issue with a couple of friends, figuring that a sign/trade would be the best solution for each of those guys (and you could possibly throw in Sheets as well). I knew that MLB would have to OK it but wasn’t sure they would have any interest in circumventing the system in place. This sounds like they might be amenable to it.
I wonder if this opens the door to the trade of draft picks. A team might not be willing to surrender a 16-30 pick for those guys but would consider it if the pick was in the 70-90 range.
#15 by Berndaddy - February 16th, 2009 at 13:45
Brian wouldn’t this piss off teams that have had to give up compensatory picks already? An argument is waiting to happen there, eh.
#16 by Brian Oliver - February 16th, 2009 at 14:25
Berndaddy - It could. I’m just trying to figure out how teams would be less annoyed if it was a player they received vice a pick.
#17 by Pilchard - February 16th, 2009 at 14:31
The off-season has demonstrated that MLB teams have placed even greater importance on the MLB draft. Can never remember a year when the market disappeared for solid MLB players because of concerns about losing a draft pick.
#18 by estuartj - February 16th, 2009 at 15:57
I think its far more likely MLB is leaking this to cajole players like Hudson to take 1 year deals so teams like the Nats will sign them in hopes of “flipping” them next off-season when either the market will have improved or they have at least avoided having to make major changes in the compensation system for another year.
#19 by Louis J - February 16th, 2009 at 16:31
Brian Why would the sign-trade situation require MLB approval. The Nats can sign Hudson and D’backs would get a high compensatory pick. Or, the D’backs can sign Hudson (he still can be signed as free agent by D’backs) and then trade him to the Nats. The options would be up to the D’backs & Nats; that is, if the D’backs want to give up their compensatory pick for 2 Nats players and the Nats agree to give up those players for Hudson and a slightly better 2nd round pick, so be it. The first question is: Do the D’backs what to give up their high compensatory pick for 2 Nats prospects and the bigger question is: Do the Nats want to “pay” for Hudson with a new contract and 2 prospects or just give him a contract and keep the 2 prospects. Of course, trading the 2008 draft choices before June, 2009 and trading future 2009 draft choices is a volation of the “current” CBA; therefore, I don’t understand how MLB can circumvent the CBA. Let’s face it, overall, this is the wrong year to be a free agent.
#20 by estuartj - February 16th, 2009 at 17:09
From Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports “Free agents cannot be traded before June 15 without their consent, but the union will permit Cruz and other Type A players to waive that right, according to Rob Manfred, baseball’s executive vice-president of labor relations.”
#21 by Brian Oliver - February 16th, 2009 at 17:27
I did not think this was worth a post of its own
Pittsburgh Pirates signed 1B Larry Broadway
#22 by Andrew Stebbins - February 16th, 2009 at 18:14
Off topic - Odalis Perez wants to back out of his verbal agreement
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3911660&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines
#23 by estuartj - February 16th, 2009 at 18:56
Good ridance to bad garbage, looking at some of those quotes from Odalis, wow - that’s class…
I think his chances of making the rotation were pretty slim anyway, if Hill is healthy he had no chance and at most I think he was a bridge to Jordan Zimmermann, and how much is that worth?
#24 by estuartj - February 16th, 2009 at 19:25
If the team gives Perez the guaranteed contract would they have to make a space for him on the 40 man or can you have a guaranteed minor league contract?
#25 by Andrew Stebbins - February 16th, 2009 at 21:50
You’d have to clear room on the 40-man. The guarentee part means a guarentee to make the 25 man.
#26 by Sue Dinem - February 16th, 2009 at 22:41
I really don’t see what the fuss is all about. If he’s signed a contract — and all reports indicate as much — then he’s bound to it. If he pitches well at the WBC, then he becomes trade bait, but that gives him no more leverage than he has now.
Jimbo needs to channel Branch Rickey and remind Odalis that the Nationals finished last with him in ‘08, and can probably do just as well without him in ‘09.
#27 by Andrew Stebbins - February 16th, 2009 at 23:32
Sue, problem is, reports do not indicate that. Verbal is nothing.
—From Nats Journal:
General Manager Jim Bowden said today that the Nationals “have an agreement with Odalis Perez — and a signed terms sheet that has been confirmed by the players’ association” and Major League Baseball’s labor relations department. Bowden added that Washington expects Perez to report under the current terms.
But an MLBPA database of approved contracts does not show Perez’s deal with Washington, a source said. —
Therefore, no deal.
#28 by Louis J. - February 17th, 2009 at 08:32
estuartj
Thanks for the info about free agents can’t be traded before June 15th w/o their approval.
#29 by Sue Dinem - February 17th, 2009 at 09:32
AS — According to all attributed reports, the Nats had an agreement with Perez, which was what I was referring to in my post, which was written prior to the item in NJ, and does not necessarily conflict with what Bowden said. It may merely mean that the contract hasn’t been entered into the database.
And it appears that that quote from the NJ may be missing some ellipses.
From the Washington Times:
*General manager Jim Bowden said Monday evening there is no dispute about the validity of the deal.
“We agreed to terms on a contract with Odalis Perez,” Bowden said. “The contract has been recognized and confirmed with both the players association and [Major League Baseball's] labor relations department. And we expect Odalis Perez to fulfill his contract as we’ve prepared to fulfill our end of it.”
…
If he does not meet the reporting deadline, Perez could be subject to suspension. Even if he does ultimately report, the Nationals could elect not to add him to the major league roster and force him to report to Class AAA Syracuse (preventing him from signing with any other club).*
#30 by Pilchard - February 17th, 2009 at 11:28
From these reports, looks like Odalis has no legit argument to wriggle out of the deal, and the Nats are intent on holding him to the letter of their agreement (which they should considering, the Nats would also apparently be bound if suddenly the Nats wanted out of the deal).
#31 by Andrew Stebbins - February 17th, 2009 at 11:38
I shall provide a link to Chris Needham’s new blog…
http://www.nbcwashington.com/sports/baseball/Perez-On-Second-Thought.html
If there is nothing signed, there is no contract. Business Law 101.
Sue - missing ellipses? I copied and pasted.
#32 by Pilchard - February 17th, 2009 at 12:10
According to Andrew Stebbins post #27, there was a signed “terms sheet” between Perez and the Nats. Also, oral contracts are enforceable in most instances.
#33 by Andrew Stebbins - February 17th, 2009 at 13:02
More likely, there was a memo of understanding between Nats, Perez, and his agent. The PA alerts certain people when a terms sheet has been agreed upon.
#34 by Terry Byrom - February 17th, 2009 at 13:06
Interesting off-season with these situations. Who was it in Atlanta that had an agreement but then didn’t!?!?
#35 by Andrew Stebbins - February 17th, 2009 at 13:10
Terry, exactly. Same idea.
#36 by Scott - February 17th, 2009 at 13:37
Odalis Perez: I’ll watch him on TV, but will not buy a ticket to see him pitch - marginal talent at best.
#37 by Sue Dinem - February 17th, 2009 at 13:41
AS - Indeed you did. I’m referring to the difference in quotes from the Times and Posts from Bowden. It’s possible that Bowden gave separate interviews, but not probable.
Again, I’m no lawyer. But I am a journalist and that nobody has bothered to contact Perez’s lawyer is a serious reporting omission. Even if he has nothing to say, somebody ought to at least print that they made the effort to ask.
#38 by estuartj - February 17th, 2009 at 14:38
Getting back on subject; Are there any rules concerning MLB clubs have ownership of minor league affiliates of another club?
This would seem like a pretty clear case of conflict of interest, but then again this is baseball….
For instance, could the Nats ownership group attempt to acquire the Defenders (or perhaps a AAA team) to move them to Richmond and then move the Nats affiliation to them a the end of the current agreement?
Or in past memory could ATL have sold the AAA francise in Richmond to the Nats and then moved their affiliation to a different existing non-subsidiary franchise closer to ATL?
#39 by Kevin - February 17th, 2009 at 14:55
Is there any requirement that the Nats have a AAA affiliate, or could they just make do with two AA teams instead? Having both so close would be good.
#40 by Pilchard - February 17th, 2009 at 15:26
^^ Would guess that you could not do that, for among other reasons, as two AA teams and no AAA team for the Nats would leave an odd number of both AAA and AA teams, which can not happen in a sport where teams play almost everyday.
#41 by Terry Byrom - February 17th, 2009 at 15:48
The Nats could certainly try to buy the Defenders, but that would be $10 to $14 million. On top of that there are operating costs etc. and do you really want them owning a team instead of signing free agents or whatever the trade off would be?
#42 by estuartj - February 17th, 2009 at 17:28
You can bet whoever owns those teams is making money, or at least breaking even so I doubt it’s a either-or situation. The Lerner’s know all about making a sound long term investment, which I believe moves like this (those not necessarily buying the Defenders) would be.
#43 by Sue Dinem - February 17th, 2009 at 17:43
It depends. As the old saw goes, the teams control everything but the players and the weather. But a franchise’s value is often tied to its facility.
For example: Silber, et al, may be clearing in excess of $1M annually in Woodbridge (a figure quoted to me by a prospective buyer) but the franchise’s value is much less than other CL affiliates because it’s playing in a substandard stadium w/o the ability to generate income via luxury suites, etc.
Like Terry mentioned though, the prospective buyer decided against the purchase when [they] weighed the catchet of ownership vs. the difficulty in running it.
#44 by BinM - February 17th, 2009 at 20:14
Just an opinion, but the Richmond stadium is a horrible park - surrounded by Industrial parks, hasn’t had signifcant work done on it since who knows when. Why would the prospective buyers abandon an attractive, albeit smaller park like Harrisburg & haul the franchise to a place like Richmond? I’d rather leave the AA club where it is & have the A-level franchise in Hagerstown look at a possible relocation when their agreement is due to expire.
#45 by estuartj - February 17th, 2009 at 20:46
Did Hagerstown do work on the stadium there? I remember their being tons of issues there, but don’t recall the details or outcome…
#46 by Terry Byrom - February 17th, 2009 at 21:23
Bin, the team in Harrisburg isn’t going anywhere. And the Nationals don’t control where the franchises move to, they just control where they have affiliates. So the Nats can’t “move” Hagerstown nor can they “move” Harrisburg.
And just to clarify, IF all the domino’s fall into place and there is a team in Richmond and the Nats want to have their AA affiliate there, we are still guaranteed a team in the Eastern League in Harrisburg. We aren’t losing our team, we’d just be affiliated with someone else. Just like Syracuse is now affiliated with the Nats instead of the Jays.
#47 by Zee - February 18th, 2009 at 03:55
Well here is the top story for the daybreak. Quick capsule synopsis, so much for “Smiley Gonzalez” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/17/nats.gonzalez/index.html
What a disgrace.
#48 by will - February 19th, 2009 at 17:48
Brian, Thanks for the linking my Senators Renovation photos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/34759061@N08/). It’s going to be a great addition to the Harrisburg community when it’s complete.
I hope to see the Nat’s keep their affiliation in Harrisburg. It’s been an interesting process watching the rebuilding of the farm system.