BATRA - The Liberty Braves Group

[txvalue]

Well played sir.

 

Judge is 27 or 28 so I veto that nomination. Torres is great but give me Acuna.

 

More hits, HR, R, RBI, STL while hitting for a higher avg and ops.

 

 

[KJP]

Well played sir.

 

Judge is 27 or 28 so I veto that nomination. Torres is great but give me Acuna.

 

More hits, HR, R, RBI, STL while hitting for a higher avg and ops.

 

Yeah, Acuna is really really good.  Hope we can see him play again soon.

[txvalue]

First challenge of the young season is a breakout of CV-19 on the Marlins which has caused tonights NY v. Phil game to be postponed. Stock is fading on the news

[Foreign Tuffett]

I posted the below in the The Madison Square Garden Company thread a few days ago, but it belongs here:

 

 

Re the Mets being for sale: My understanding is that it has been widely reported that Cohen has already bid at least $2 billion, with at least one other bidder still involved in the process.

 

 

I think a very important distinction to be made in any discussion about sports team sales is whether the comps were forced sales, or otherwise detached from economic reality. So, using baseball as an example, and in reverse chronological order:

 

2019 - Royals sold due to owners' failing health (died just a few months after the sale closed)

 

2018 - Marlins sold. Owner probably was not a forced seller. $1.2 billion a very good price for what is, per Forbes, the least valuable team in the MLB

 

2016 - Nintendo (yes, that Nintendo) sold majority interest in Mariners to a group that already owned a minority interest in the team. Why did Nintendo own an American baseball team? I have no idea. Why did it insist on maintaining 10% ownership of the team? I have no idea.

 

The next most recent sales were in 2012.

 

So how many good, recent comps do we have for the sale of a MLB team? Maybe just the Marlins transaction? Even the Mets owners (Wilpon family) are reportedly very motivated sellers due to their financial circumstances.

[Gregmal]

I think the Wilpons are "motivated"...but not necessarily forced sellers. They've been playing this game for nearly a decade, due to fallout from the Madoff involvement. At one point they were selling the team to Einhorn. Now its Cohen. Always a drama with them. I do think it gets done sooner than later.

 

There is also talk the RSN is on the table, which would put the sale figured a hair below $3B. But its a sticking point apparently as the Wilpons want to keep it.

[Foreign Tuffett]

I think the Wilpons are "motivated"...but not necessarily forced sellers. They've been playing this game for nearly a decade, due to fallout from the Madoff involvement. At one point they were selling the team to Einhorn. Now its Cohen. Always a drama with them. I do think it gets done sooner than later.

 

There is also talk the RSN is on the table, which would put the sale figured a hair below $3B. But its a sticking point apparently as the Wilpons want to keep it.

 

They have been 'playing this game' for years because their financial position has, based on everything I've read, been poor for years. COVID pushed them over the cliff, but they were probably already standing right next to the ledge.

 

Cohen originally bought a minority ownership stake in the aftermath of the deal with Einhorn falling apart: "Ultimately, the Wilpons covered that cash shortfall by selling minority shares to a number of people, including Cohen, while retaining control."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardmegdal/2019/12/04/will-the-wilpons-really-sell-the-mets-a-history-lesson/#3bc0fc082ac6

[Spekulatius]

How do you guys view the future of Baseball as a sport? It feels to me that engagement is failing and the audience skews very old. No international viewership either.

 

I think this will put a limit on future team value appreciation.

[Foreign Tuffett]

How do you guys few the future of Baseball as a sport? It feels to me that engagement is failing and the audience skews very old. No international viewership either.

 

I think this will put a limit on future team value appreciation.

 

NYT article from last October ("How Popular is Baseball, Really?") is required reading. I think the short answer is that baseball is still very popular, but it is more regional than the other big American sports, with many (most?) fans only following the local team.

 

Recent Fox and TBS national TV deal renewals indicate that broadcasters still happy to pay up.

 

 

Two problems Manfred is trying to fix:

a) Too many minor league teams, which dilutes the baseball fan base and imposes some additional costs on teams for minimal marginal benefits. There are ~160 minor league baseball teams, ~40 of them are probably going to disappear.

b) The games are too long

[txvalue]

The plan to cut minor league organizations is worth following. They are trying to eliminate 42 teams to help trim player development expenses. Most of the teams are in lower level Rookie type leagues which tend to have really low fan turnout and subpar ballparks. As an example the Braves Florida Class A affiliate in the Florida league averaged just over 300 fans per game.

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/which-milb-teams-are-on-the-list-to-be-eliminated-its-impossible-to-say/

 

I think the plan makes good sense if they can get it to happen. Bring minor league teams closer to their "parents", making travel more regional and organizing things into 4 leagues:

 

AAA

AA

A+

A

 

MILB franchises are trying to improve facilities and the fan experience to help make their case to avoid the chopping block. If all goes to plan you end up with less overlap, a better fan experience and hopefully improved finances. To be sure there will be pushback from the minor league teams but the CV-19 landscape might tilt the scales towards MLB in negotiations.

[lnofeisone]

How do you guys view the future of Baseball as a sport? It feels to me that engagement is failing and the audience skews very old. No international viewership either.

 

I think this will put a limit on future team value appreciation.

 

I think the engagement is falling and audience is skewing old but those are macro statistics that are dominated by white consumers. I am encouraged by the participation and growth trends of the by Hispanic segment of the population. I think this is one of those things that baseball is doing right and should continue to do while figuring out how to engage other segements.

 

https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/the-online-lives-latinx-consumers.pdf

https://thinknow.com/blog/hispanic-fandom-breathes-new-life-into-major-league-baseball/

http://hispanicad.com/el-blog/television/nielsen-snapshot-hispanics-and-october-viewing-trends

[KJP]

 

 

Two problems Manfred is trying to fix:

a) Too many minor league teams, which dilutes the baseball fan base and imposes some additional costs on teams for minimal marginal benefits. There are ~160 minor league baseball teams, ~40 of them are probably going to disappear.

b) The games are too long

 

At the risk of generalizing from my own opinions, baseball has two other problems: 

 

1.  Winning baseball is boring baseball: Under the current rules, winning baseball is boring baseball.  Analytics has shown that focusing on patience at the plate, launch angle, etc., produces more wins, but it also pushes more and more at bats towards the three "true outcomes" (walk, strikeout, home run).  The problem is that that type of baseball has far too little action -- more and more pitches where nothing happens -- and eliminates (because they are counterproductive) events that are actually exciting, e.g., stolen bases, hit and runs, suicide squeeze.  As you mention, it also produces games that are 3+ hours long, so many kids don't even stay up late enough to watch the end of a game that starts at 7 or 7:30pm and likely wouldn't have the attention span to watch such a game when they could be playing Fortnite with their friends instead. 

 

These problems remind me of the "dead puck" era in the NHL, which was ultimately dealt with in part through rules changes and developments in tactics.  I think baseball has to move in that direction, but it's not obvious how to do it.  Things like a pitch clock or limiting defensive shifts don't get at the underlying problem that the current rules make boring baseball winning baseball. 

 

Another issue is that baseball currently has a historically great player on par with Ruth and Mays in Mike Trout.  But he does not have the personality or desire to drive interest in the game and his greatness is more subtle than hitting 70 home runs a year like McGwire or Bonds.  But again this is a much more transient issue.  A bigger one is that baseball unwritten rules and codes often express exuberance that fans like, e.g., a massive bat flip and strut around the bases might get you thrown at.

 

2.  It's relatively ill-suited to fantasy sports and gambling:  Football is only once a week, so even casual fans can watch every game their team plays and can participate in fantasy sports and even gamble on it in the belief that they know something about who's playing.  Baseball, on the other hand, is essentially every day for six months plus the playoffs.  That schedule makes fantasy baseball much more time-consuming and difficult to deal with than fantasy football and it makes gambling harder.  It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect gambling/fantasy is a big reason why people are watching a poor Thursday or Sunday night NFL matchup.  Nobody cares are Arizona v. Cincinnati, but they care about Kyler Murray's passing yards and whether Arizona can cover the spread.

[Gamecock-YT]

How do you guys view the future of Baseball as a sport? It feels to me that engagement is failing and the audience skews very old. No international viewership either.

 

I think this will put a limit on future team value appreciation.

 

I think they should adapt like cricket did with limited overs. England is pushing a new version which will be just 100 balls, or 16.6 overs. There's also versions of the game with 20 overs and 50 overs. A T20 version of baseball would be spectacular to watch. Almost like a pseudo-home run derby.

[Foreign Tuffett]

 

 

Two problems Manfred is trying to fix:

a) Too many minor league teams, which dilutes the baseball fan base and imposes some additional costs on teams for minimal marginal benefits. There are ~160 minor league baseball teams, ~40 of them are probably going to disappear.

b) The games are too long

 

At the risk of generalizing from my own opinions, baseball has two other problems: 

 

1.  Winning baseball is boring baseball: Under the current rules, winning baseball is boring baseball.  Analytics has shown that focusing on patience at the plate, launch angle, etc., produces more wins, but it also pushes more and more at bats towards the three "true outcomes" (walk, strikeout, home run).  The problem is that that type of baseball has far too little action -- more and more pitches where nothing happens -- and eliminates (because they are counterproductive) events that are actually exciting, e.g., stolen bases, hit and runs, suicide squeeze.  As you mention, it also produces games that are 3+ hours long, so many kids don't even stay up late enough to watch the end of a game that starts at 7 or 7:30pm and likely wouldn't have the attention span to watch such a game when they could be playing Fortnite with their friends instead. 

 

These problems remind me of the "dead puck" era in the NHL, which was ultimately dealt with in part through rules changes and developments in tactics.  I think baseball has to move in that direction, but it's not obvious how to do it.  Things like a pitch clock or limiting defensive shifts don't get at the underlying problem that the current rules make boring baseball winning baseball. 

 

Another issue is that baseball currently has a historically great player on par with Ruth and Mays in Mike Trout.  But he does not have the personality or desire to drive interest in the game and his greatness is more subtle than hitting 70 home runs a year like McGwire or Bonds.  But again this is a much more transient issue.  A bigger one is that baseball unwritten rules and codes often express exuberance that fans like, e.g., a massive bat flip and strut around the bases might get you thrown at.

 

2.  It's relatively ill-suited to fantasy sports and gambling:  Football is only once a week, so even casual fans can watch every game their team plays and can participate in fantasy sports and even gamble on it in the belief that they know something about who's playing.  Baseball, on the other hand, is essentially every day for six months plus the playoffs.  That schedule makes fantasy baseball much more time-consuming and difficult to deal with than fantasy football and it makes gambling harder.  It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect gambling/fantasy is a big reason why people are watching a poor Thursday or Sunday night NFL matchup.  Nobody cares are Arizona v. Cincinnati, but they care about Kyler Murray's passing yards and whether Arizona can cover the spread.

 

Thanks for the color on the longer games issue. I am not a baseball fan, so it isn't a trivial task for me to get up to speed on this sort of thing.

 

Anyway, found this academic article saying very similar things: "My major conclusion is that the single biggest factor contributing to the longer games is the number of pitches. The rise in strikeouts and related drop in outs on balls in play accounts for much of the difference over time."

 

https://sabr.org/journal/article/why-do-games-take-so-long/

 

 

 

I don't know enough about MLB sports betting to intelligently comment about its future prospects

 

 

 

 

[dwy000]

 

 

Two problems Manfred is trying to fix:

a) Too many minor league teams, which dilutes the baseball fan base and imposes some additional costs on teams for minimal marginal benefits. There are ~160 minor league baseball teams, ~40 of them are probably going to disappear.

b) The games are too long

 

At the risk of generalizing from my own opinions, baseball has two other problems: 

 

1.  Winning baseball is boring baseball: Under the current rules, winning baseball is boring baseball.  Analytics has shown that focusing on patience at the plate, launch angle, etc., produces more wins, but it also pushes more and more at bats towards the three "true outcomes" (walk, strikeout, home run).  The problem is that that type of baseball has far too little action -- more and more pitches where nothing happens -- and eliminates (because they are counterproductive) events that are actually exciting, e.g., stolen bases, hit and runs, suicide squeeze.  As you mention, it also produces games that are 3+ hours long, so many kids don't even stay up late enough to watch the end of a game that starts at 7 or 7:30pm and likely wouldn't have the attention span to watch such a game when they could be playing Fortnite with their friends instead. 

 

These problems remind me of the "dead puck" era in the NHL, which was ultimately dealt with in part through rules changes and developments in tactics.  I think baseball has to move in that direction, but it's not obvious how to do it.  Things like a pitch clock or limiting defensive shifts don't get at the underlying problem that the current rules make boring baseball winning baseball. 

 

Another issue is that baseball currently has a historically great player on par with Ruth and Mays in Mike Trout.  But he does not have the personality or desire to drive interest in the game and his greatness is more subtle than hitting 70 home runs a year like McGwire or Bonds.  But again this is a much more transient issue.  A bigger one is that baseball unwritten rules and codes often express exuberance that fans like, e.g., a massive bat flip and strut around the bases might get you thrown at.

 

2.  It's relatively ill-suited to fantasy sports and gambling:  Football is only once a week, so even casual fans can watch every game their team plays and can participate in fantasy sports and even gamble on it in the belief that they know something about who's playing.  Baseball, on the other hand, is essentially every day for six months plus the playoffs.  That schedule makes fantasy baseball much more time-consuming and difficult to deal with than fantasy football and it makes gambling harder.  It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect gambling/fantasy is a big reason why people are watching a poor Thursday or Sunday night NFL matchup.  Nobody cares are Arizona v. Cincinnati, but they care about Kyler Murray's passing yards and whether Arizona can cover the spread.

 

Thanks for the color on the longer games issue. I am not a baseball fan, so it isn't a trivial task for me to get up to speed on this sort of thing.

 

Anyway, found this academic article saying very similar things: "My major conclusion is that the single biggest factor contributing to the longer games is the number of pitches. The rise in strikeouts and related drop in outs on balls in play accounts for much of the difference over time."

 

https://sabr.org/journal/article/why-do-games-take-so-long/

 

 

 

I don't know enough about MLB sports betting to intelligently comment about its future prospects

 

I find it's less the number of pitches as the number of pitchers.  I was surprised but not shocked at the graph they had that shows the average game has 7 relievers now (!!)  Each mid-inning reliever gets 8 warm up pitches - which often times is more than they end up throwing to the 1 or 2 batters they face.  You can now count on one hand the number of complete games any pitcher might throw during a season.  As soon as they hit 80-90 pitches they are ready to be pulled, often even if they have a 1 or 2 hitter going.  I'm not sure how to solve this but it's killing the flow of the game.  Maybe limit the number of pitchers on a roster?

[Gregmal]

Totally agree that the nerds have ruined much of sports, but especially baseball. Look at complete games from 50 years ago, or even 30, and look now. Yet, somehow, pitchers, despite an obsession with pitch count, continue to get injured at fairly high rates. No small ball anymore. The shifts are ridiculous. I love the sport, but its gotten bad. Its comparable to hockey, like was mentioned with the dead puck era, but more relevantly I think, the butterfly. Look at how exciting goalies where pre 2000's. Grant Fuhr and Dominick Hasek. Now they're all robots that sit on their knees and swivel. No athleticism. Boring.

[Foreign Tuffett]

I've seen some commentary recently that big three (NFL, MLB, NBA) pro sports teams are the 'greater fool' theory at work since (a) they don't generate much cash flow so (b) you need sale of the team for the investment to be a success. A few years I would have agreed with this reasoning myself, but now think it's overly simplistic.

 

For readily explicable reasons team values have trended steadily up over time. Take a look at the below link. If an anonymous survey was done, how many of the owners would report that they overpaid/regret buying the team? My guess would be only the Marlins and Royals owners, and that only because of the small window between when they bought in and when a horrendous pandemic broke out. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_principal_owners

 

As this humble respondent predicted on this forum some months ago, e-sports is a very different ballgame.

 

https://www.theloadout.com/tournaments/overwatch-league/andy-miller-san-francisco-shock-nrg-2020

 

Fenway Sports Group, owner of Boston Red Sox and Liverpool FC, is planning to go public via (you guessed it) SPAC

 

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/oakland-billy-beane-as-fenway-sports-group

 

I'm sure everyone knows about the Mets sale by now

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2020/09/14/steve-cohen-to-buy-mets-for-242-billion-within-one-percent-of-forbes-valuation-of-team/#3877a8041d21

 

[Gregmal]

Oh yea, the Fenway sale was egregious. I owned RBACU and couldn't sell it quick enough on Monday. I would sum that up as a classic SPAC deal, and hesitate to use it as a basis for other valuations. The warrants seem like a tempting short.

[Gregmal]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31183822/mlb-moving-all-star-game-atlanta-georgia-voting-law

 

I support this move. Love the idea of punishing Atlanta, and specifically Fulton County, which is probably one of the biggest problems with Georgia. Bring the ASG to Texas, Arizona, or Florida where it will be appreciated. Or do it neutrally in one of the Carolinas. That would be cool. 

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1378081618808692737/photo/1

Not sure what punishing a group of fans or a city does for the league in terms making a political statement, but Manfred's stealthily crept up on Goodell in terms of taking the title of largest idiot running a professional sports league. 

EDIT: added link to statement from the Braves

Edited April 2, 2021 by Gregmal

[thefatbaboon]

I'm really confused.  Everyone in the press says the law is horrific and disenfranchises minorities and blacks.   But all i see when i read the bill summary is that there are some changes to the times when one can mail things and when ballots boxes are open and also that absentee voters have to have an ID.  I couldn't find anything about blacks or latinos or any other minorities. Cancelling an All Star game seems kind of extreme, surely more obviously worse and discriminatory happenings occur than this in every state and in every year?  But I'm no expert and obviously haven't read the whole bill, is there anyone who can explain it to me?

[winjitsu]

14 minutes ago, thefatbaboon said:

I'm really confused.  Everyone in the press says the law is horrific and disenfranchises minorities and blacks.   But all i see when i read the bill summary is that there are some changes to the times when one can mail things and when ballots boxes are open and also that absentee voters have to have an ID.  I couldn't find anything about blacks or latinos or any other minorities. Cancelling an All Star game seems kind of extreme, surely more obviously worse and discriminatory happenings occur than this in every state and in every year?  But I'm no expert and obviously haven't read the whole bill, is there anyone who can explain it to me?

Save your petty jabs for the politics section.

[thefatbaboon]

Excuse me?

I'm a Braves shareholder, have been for many years, from the spin in fact. But I'm not American and have no idea so hence why i asked. Can't you explain it instead of insulting me?  

Edited April 3, 2021 by thefatbaboon

[KJP]

3 hours ago, thefatbaboon said:

Excuse me?

I'm a Braves shareholder, have been for many years, from the spin in fact. But I'm not American and have no idea so hence why i asked. Can't you explain it instead of insulting me?  

I have found Google, rather than this board, to be a better source of information on questions like this.  Without endorsing any view or inviting any discussion on the merits of the law, here are some critiques of it: 

https://time.com/5950231/georgia-voting-rights-new-law/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-s-restrictive-new-voting-law-explained/ar-BB1f0hZK

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/03/31/why-we-are-concerned-about-georgias-new-election-law/

Edited April 3, 2021 by KJP

[thefatbaboon]

KJP, thanks for the links.  I never participate in the politics section and have no interest to do so but obviously here this is about an investment I have, so I found the reaction of the other poster ridiculous.  I mean if politics or religion or whatever impact an investment surely it's normal to want to understand?  It's like forbidding discussion of tobacco regulation politics on the BAT and MO boards.  Or net neutrality politics on the CMCSA and CHTR boards.

Edited April 3, 2021 by thefatbaboon

[KJP]

1 hour ago, thefatbaboon said:

KJP, thanks for the links.  I never participate in the politics section and have no interest to do so but obviously here this is about an investment I have, so I found the reaction of the other poster ridiculous.  I mean if politics or religion or whatever impact an investment surely it's normal to want to understand?  It's like forbidding discussion of tobacco regulation politics on the BAT and MO boards.  Or net neutrality politics on the CMCSA and CHTR boards.

You're welcome. 

I agree that regulation can affect business value and thus should not be off limits.  I can't speak for the poster who responded to your original post, but I don't think your first and last sentences were what elicited the response.  Rather, it likely was the sentences in between, which could be interpreted as both flippant about an issue some people find very serious and as trying to start a discussion about the merits of the law (a political discussion), rather than its likely impact on BATRA (an investment-related discussion).  Needless to say, though, I'm not the arbiter of anything here, so take those comments as just one person's interpretation of your post and the response to it. 

[Gregmal]

Yea I dont think the "politics" is really even the issue here, but rather a wakeup call as to the various nuances of sports teams and ownership. I fail to understand, after taking away baseball in 2020, what the fans, players, employees, vendors, etc of the Braves/Atlanta(I actually just realized they are not even in Fulton anymore, rather Cobb County)....What does punishing these people accomplish? What did they have to do with the implementation of the law? Imagine if Dominos told all its franchises in GA to close? Its just horrifically thought out knee jerk reactions that hurt people who didnt do anything wrong.

MLB HQ moving the game has no effect on "their" bottom line. Its something similar I look at with the MSG entities, especially over the past year as Dolan has been getting much more vocal about donating to Republicans. Look at what happened with the WNBA team in GA. I dont think Braves ownership is in anyone's crosshairs, however sports has become very different over the past half decade and the leagues are seeking growth at all costs. The players are using their platforms more and more. Not even just politically, but for their own gain. Look at Anthony Davis or James Harden. Guys were basically just like, "I dont wanna be here anymore, trade me"...and just like that those teams are fundamentally altered. Its something folks need to consider. I mean at this point would it be farfetched if the Braves made the WS(OK they aint beating the Dodgers, but still) but the networks and MLB said "no homes games"? Playoff home games are pure gravy for the teams.