sign in sign up
<<
Home , Baltimore Orioles, Manny Machado, Peter Angelos, Stuart Sternberg, Ted Lerner, Tuesday Night Baseball

World Champions 1983, 1970, 1966 Champions 1983, 1979, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1966 Division Champions 2014, 1997, 1983, 1979, 1974, 1973, 1971, 1970, 1969 American League Wild Card 2012, 1996

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Columns:  ' free-agent prospects difficult to gauge entering offseason The Sun 11/5  Examining how MASN decision could affect Orioles, plus on free agency The Sun 11/4  Judge sides with Orioles, dismisses Major League decision in MASN case The Sun 11/4  This, that and the other MASNsports.com 11/5  A look at 's season and possible future defensive destination MASNsports.com 11/5  Judge rules in favor of Orioles in MASN TV rights dispute with Nationals SI.com 11/4  Judge rules in favor of Orioles, MASN in ongoing media rights dispute with Nationals SportsBusiness Daily 11/4  Judge rules in favor of Orioles in ongoing MASN dispute with Nationals CBSSports.com 11/  Judge Rules in Favor of Orioles in TV Rights Dispute With Nationals Wall Street Journal 11/4  Judge rules in favor of MASN and Orioles, tosses out MLB panel’s ruling for Nats Post 11/4  Judge tosses arbitration that said MASN owes Nats $298M Associated Press 11/4  Judge Rules In Orioles Favor In MASN Dispute MLBTradeRumors.com 11/4  Orioles Triumph in MLB Civil War Over TV Money HollywoodReporter.com 11/4  MLB slammed for its “utter lack of concern for fairness” in its arbitration with the Orioles NBCSports.com 11/4  After Five Month Delay, NY Supreme Court Justice Rules In Favor Of MASN In Dispute Over Media Rights Forbes 11/4  MASN court case: Judge rules in favor of Orioles, against Nationals, but it might not mean anything CamdenChat.com 11/4

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-wieters-free-agent-profile-1105- 20151104-story.html

Matt Wieters' free-agent prospects difficult to gauge entering offseason

By Dan Connolly / November 5, 2015

With the ending early Monday, six Orioles are now free agents. The club has until 11:59 p.m. Friday to exclusively talk extensions before the players can begin negotiating with other teams.

Rarely do players sign during the exclusive period, since they are so close to testing the market and discovering what other teams think they are worth. Orioles executive vice president Dan Duquette conceded this point recently, saying he expected all six to test the market.

Here's a six-part look — in alphabetical order — at each Oriole free agent's prospects along with a prediction of the likelihood of their return (one being the lowest chance, 10 the highest).

Name: Matt Wieters

Position: Switch-hitting

Age: 29

Born: May 21, 1986

2015 stats: .267 average, .319 on-base percentage, eight homers in 75 games

2015 salary: $8.3 million

Qualifying offer possibility: High.

Prospects heading into free agency: Complicated. Wieters is only 29 and he had been one of the better all-around in baseball since debuting in 2009. But right elbow surgery in 2014 cost him much of that season and a chunk of 2015. He only caught 55 games this season, and never on three consecutive days. There's no question that his ultimate value is behind the plate, so teams will have to take a leap of faith that he can catch 120 games or more in 2016, when he is two years removed from surgery. He played in 130 or more games, starting no fewer than 121 at catcher in each of his first four full seasons.

Why he'll stay an Oriole: It's the only organization he has known. In baseball terms, he grew up with many of the guys in the Orioles clubhouse. He's considered a team leader and is the kind of person who studies the big picture. He's more concerned with having the right fit professionally and personally than anything else. Wieters also has forged tremendous relationships with manager , catching instructor and fellow catcher . It's rare for a player to be in sync with all of those components at once. Wieters and Russell, in particular, have bonded exceptionally well. The Orioles are considering making him a qualifying offer, a one-year, $15.8 million deal that would allow the Orioles to get a 2016 draft pick if he rejects the deal and signs elsewhere. The offer would nearly Wieters' salary from 2015 and allows him to enter the free-agent market next offseason. Theoretically, with a full year of health, he could answer some of the lingering questions and be in position for a megadeal after 2016.

Why he'll leave the Orioles: For one, it would be highly surprising if Wieters accepted the qualifying offer. On the surface, it seems like it could be a solid option, but 34 previous players have been made the offer and none have taken it. Wieters' agent, , has railed on the concept in the past, so it's hard to fathom one of his clients would be the first to accept it. It's possible Boras might ultimately seek a one-year, show-you're-healthy deal if the multiyear offers aren't to Wieters' liking this offseason. But the agent isn't going to endorse something that could thin a client's pool of suitors in November, and that's precisely what a qualifying offer does. Boras will be seeking a multiyear deal based on Wieters' past performance and on the paucity of quality big league catchers. One obvious comparison is Brian McCann, who agreed to a five- year, $85 million deal with the Yankees before the 2014 season. He turned 30 right before that season began. The questions about Wieters' elbow might lessen his ultimate windfall, but when it comes to big-time clients, Boras usually has a good handle on the market. And there's also a question as to whether the Orioles, who have a lot of holes to fill this offseason, would invest so much in catcher since they have Joseph, who has emerged as a capable big league backstop while Wieters has been injured.

Best landing spot: The . They aren't the only team that can use stability at catcher. The are another team that comes to mind, and Boras and the Nationals have a long-standing relationship. But the Braves, on paper, are a tremendous fit. They have a young pitching staff, a sagging offense and a new stadium to open in two years. Wieters grew up in as a Braves fan and went to Tech in Atlanta, where he met his wife. The couple built their offseason dream home there. Former Orioles teammate is also there.

Connolly's scale of return: 3

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/bal-examining-how--decision-could- affect-orioles-plus-dan-duquette-on-free-agency-20151104-story.html

Examining how MASN decision could affect Orioles, plus Dan Duquette on free agency

By Dan Connolly / The Baltimore Sun November 4, 2015

There are two intriguing questions that have arisen this week in Birdland.

One’s been lingering for a while and will soon be answered: Which Orioles will receive qualifying offers?

The other could be a lot more revealing, but the answer isn’t imminent: Does a judge’s ruling Wednesday to throw out an arbiter’s decision involving the MASN rights dispute mean the club will have more money to spend on free agents?

Orioles executive vice president Dan Duquette wisely sidestepped that one -- referring all comment on the MASN dispute to the organization’s business and legal people.

Ultimately, if the Orioles aren’t forced to send $20 million or so extra annually to theWashington Nationals -- as a arbitration panel initially ruled they would have to -- there should be more money for on-field improvements.

But, frankly, this MASN rights situation still isn’t quite over. Yes, the Orioles won a big battle when New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Marks essentially ruled that MASN and the Orioles didn’t receive a fair and impartial arbitration hearing. He suggested that the matter be resolved through a “neutral dispute resolution process.” In other words, another third party -- and a truly impartial one -- should make the call.

The Orioles haven’t wavered from their point of view: They had an agreement initially with Major League Baseball and the Nationals to set the rights fee and that shouldn’t be altered now.

Marks agreed with that contention. If he hadn’t, the Orioles likely would have been on the hook for millions. Right now, they aren’t.

But there’s no telling when this thing ends, and therefore there’s no concrete understanding as to what its lasting effect will be.

Duquette could be a little more forthcoming about the upcoming qualifying offers. We at least know now, according to Duquette, that the team doesn’t expect to announce its final decision on the club’s six free agents until Friday, the deadline to offer the one-year, $15.8 million deal. If a free agent rejects it, the Orioles would get a supplemental first-round draft pick in 2016 while the eventual signing team will either its first- or second-round pick (depending on 2015 final standings).

“We’ve got to tidy our slates and get ready to make a decision. I think we're zeroing in on what we want to do,” Duquette said. “We’ll do it Friday.”

There’s very little mystery here. and Wei-Yin Chen will be tendered qualifying offers and will reject them. Darren O’Day, and won’t get the offers.

Catcher Matt Wieters is a bit of a wild card, but not really. It’d be surprising if the Orioles don’t make him a qualifying offer, partially because it would be a huge surprise if Wieters, a Scott Boras client, became the first player to ever accept one. In the previous three years in the current system, 34 players have received the offer and none have taken it.

Duquette also said Wednesday that there is nothing new to report concerning the re-signing any of those six during the exclusive negotiating period that ends Friday. So you can expect that the group can begin negotiating with other teams after midnight Friday night.

That’s not really a surprise, or a major problem. It’s what usually happens this time a year with most players and clubs; once it has come this far, players understandably like to test the market.

Duquette isn’t one to show his hand with free agency. He’s not discussing which players he’s targeting, including any Korean or Japanese players potentially available through the bidding process.

“All these players on the market, I’m not going to comment on them individually,” he said. “But you know what we are looking for: pitching, help in the outfield and we’re looking for some catching depth.”

The Orioles won’t need catching depth if they hang onto Wieters. But, Duquette said, right now Wieters is “a free agent in the talent pool.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-masn-court-decision-20151104-story.html

Judge sides with Orioles, dismisses Major League Baseball decision in MASN case

By Jeff Barker / The Baltimore Sun November 4, 2015

A New York Supreme Court justice today tossed out a Major League Baseball arbitration decision that the Orioles-controlled television network said would unfairly force it to pay tens of millions of dollars more in annual broadcast rights fees to the Washington Nationals.

Justice Lawrence K. Marks vacated the decision and strongly suggested that the parties settle the matter through a "neutral dispute resolution process."

Marks' decision was unusual in that courts rarely overturn internal arbitration cases between Major League Baseball and its clubs.

At issue was an arbitration decision to award the Nationals about $60 million in TV rights fees from the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network per year — an amount MASN believes is too high. MASN — which broadcasts both teams' games — now pays the club $40 million annually.

The judge had several options.

He could have affirmed the June 2014 decision of the three arbitrators — the owners of the , and . He could have dismissed the panel's decision and sent it back to Major League Baseball with instructions on starting over with a new decision. Or he could have sent the case to a third party, which is what he suggested. He did not specify which arbitration group might hear the case.

MASN and the Orioles argued that MLB was biased against the network and that the commissioner's office improperly influenced the decision of the arbitration panel, which MLB says is independent.

In a May 22 letter to the judge, MASN lawyers cited comments about the dispute by baseball commissioner . Manfred was quoted in national media outlets on May 21 saying he believes the arbitration panel "was empowered to set rights fees. That's what they did, and I think sooner or later MASN is going to be required to pay those rights fees."

MASN immediately wrote the judge, saying: "It is beyond any reasonable dispute that Mr. Manfred's revelations have poisoned any notion that MLB can or would act in a fair and neutral manner."

John Buckley Jr., an attorney for MLB, countered at the time that Manfred "was simply expressing confidence" that the panel members "will be found by this court to have acted independently and impartially…"

Buckley called MASN's letter a "last ditch attempt" to have the television rights issue taken out of MLB's hands.

The dispute dates back to 2012, when the Orioles and Nationals were unable to agree on the amount of television rights fees the clubs should receive from MASN, which televises both clubs' games.

The matter ended up with the arbitration panel which, MASN alleged, applied the wrong standards in deciding that the Nationals should receive about $60 million in rights fees per year. MASN now pays $40 million annually to both clubs.

MASN attorneys told the court in a filing last year that the decision would leave it with an "economically unsustainable five percent profit margin." Analysts say regional sports networks typically maintain profit margins of at least 20 percent. MASN's current profit margin has not been made public.

But the Nationals argue they are not receiving market value, noting in a recent court filing that they occupy "the third-largest designated market area in Major League Baseball (behind New York and Los Angeles)."

The Orioles "seek to deny the Nationals one of the few benefits of the bargain the Nationals were to receive — the fair market value of the rights fees beginning in 2012," said a May 26 letter to the judge from Nationals attorney Stephen Neuwirth.

The Orioles own 84 percent of the network, while the Nationals own 16 percent, a stake that grows by a percentage point each year until it tops out at 33 percent.

Last August, the judge granted MASN and the Orioles' request to block the decision while he studied issues raised in the case.

MASN has argued that the same outside counsel — New York-based law firm Proskauer Rose — represented the Nationals, the MLB and the three teams whose owners were on the arbitration panel. MASN likened the circumstance to a lawyer representing a client "before a tribunal wherein the lawyer also represents the judge and jury."

MLB has argued that the arbitration was fair.

Procedures for determining TV rights fees were brokered by baseball when the Nationals, formerly the , arrived in 2005.

A 2005 agreement was weighted toward the Orioles — giving the team a bigger ownership stake in MASN and a proportionately larger share of the profits — after the team argued that the Nationals' arrival into the region deprived Baltimore of a third of its market.

MASN attorneys suggested in court documents that the arbitration panel's decision was preordained by Major League Baseball.

MASN said MLB telegraphed its intentions by advancing the Nationals $25 million in August 2013 to make up for the difference between what the club was receiving from MASN and what it was expected to get from the arbitration panel.

MLB said the loans "were fully justified, were done with the Orioles' and MASN's knowledge and encouragement."

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2015/11/this-that-and-the-other-104.html

This, that and the other

By Roch Kubatko / MASNsports.com November 5, 2015

The Orioles' winter shopping list begins with a starting and includes a potential replacement for Chris Davis at first base, at least one and at least one reliever. It also includes catching depth, especially if Matt Wieters leaves as a free agent.

Caleb Joseph most likely would inherit the starting job, though he's an optionable piece on a roster that didn't offer enough flexibility this year. is out of options and could be a second or third catcher. I've heard that the Orioles may be willing to carry three next season due to Clevenger's ability to play other positions and serve as a left-handed .

Chance Sisco is playing in the Fall League and may return to Double-A Bowie next season with the chance, so to speak, to move up to -A Norfolk later in the summer. Sisco turns 21 in February. He's got time on his side.

The Orioles liked Audry Perez's work behind the plate at Norfolk, but they still want to add another catcher. It could come via trade or free agency - major or minor league.

* The Orioles have scouted Korean Byung-ho Park, who was posted this week, and are believed to hold interest in the right-handed slugger. They've watched him play several times over the last few years.

Park, 29, has hit 105 home runs and driven in 270 runs over the past two seasons for the Nexen Heroes in the Korean Baseball Organization. He batted .343/.436/.714 with 35 doubles, 53 home runs, 146 RBIs, 78 walks and 161 in 622 plate appearances over 140 games this year.

Park is a career .281/.387/.564 hitter in parts of nine seasons. He didn't accumulate more than 201 at-bats until 2012 (469).

Bids are being accepted until Friday. The team with the highest bid will have a 30-day negotiating period with Park, a two-time Most Valuable Player in the KBO. The posting fee is paid only if Park is signed.

Park is listed at 6 foot 1 and 236 pounds. He's a bit soft in the middle.

The same may be true of the Orioles lineup if they lose Davis, but I digress ...

* Wondering what is doing these days? He's playing for Toros del Este in the Dominican Winter League.

Young was 15-for-58 in his first 14 games, with three doubles, a home , seven RBIs, eight strikeouts and four runs scored. He was 7-for-17 versus left-handers.

Young didn't play in the majors after the Orioles released him on July 9.

* I'm told that definitely is going to play left field in the Dominican Winter League. Paredes is a man without a position, though he's been tried at a variety of them. He appeared in eight games at third base this season, two in right field and one in left. He made six starts at second base. The ball always found him.

If the Orioles hold onto Paredes - he's out of options - they need him to find his stroke. He batted .216/.252/.265 in the second half.

* Buck Showalter ranks 31st on the all-time managerial wins list with 1,340, and he's fourth among active skippers.

Showalter was third until the Nationals hired Dusty Baker, who's second with 1,671. Bruce Bochy is first with 1,702 and Mike Scioscia is third with 1,416.

Showalter is 12 wins behind for 30th place and 32 behind for 29th. * The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) will announce the finalists for all of its awards on Nov. 10 beginning at 6 p.m. on MLB Network.

Rookies of the Year will be revealed on Nov. 16, followed by Managers of the Year on Nov. 17, winners on Nov. 18 and Most Valuable Players on Nov. 19.

The Orioles figure to be shut out, though Davis will receive votes for MVP.

Also, the Gold Glove winners will be announced on Nov. 10 and the Wilson Defensive Player of the Year Awards will be revealed the following night. The Silver Slugger Awards will be announced on Nov. 12.

Plan accordingly and don't say you haven't been warned.

http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2015/11/a-look-at-manny-machados-season-and- possible-future-defensive-destination.html

A look at Manny Machado's season and possible future defensive destination

By Steve Melewski / MASNsports.com November 5, 2015

On August 31 last season, we saw something on the diamond for the first time and something that we could see often in the future.

We saw Manny Machado start at for the Orioles. It was his first major league start at short and his first professional start at the position since Aug. 8, 2012 with Double-A Bowie. While J.J. Hardy is signed through 2017 with an option for 2018, a day is coming when Hardy will no longer be the Orioles shortstop. The best man to take over for a Gold Glover is probably the guy playing next to Hardy right now.

Machado is a natural shortstop and made over 200 starts at short on the O's farm until he came to the major leagues in August of 2012 and began playing at third base. He won Gold and Platinum Gloves for his play at third in 2013.

There is a sentiment out there that if the Orioles have one of the best, maybe the best fielder, at third base in the majors now, don't mess with that.

But short is the key position on the infield and that position would allow Machado to use even more of his considerable defensive gifts, including his elite glove and arm. Machado showed improved speed on the bases in 2015 and that could mean his range at short, if he ever does play regularly there, would potentially be better than ever.

Machado's improved bat would provide the Orioles with a premium bat at a premium defensive position. There are more players playing third base capable of hitting 30 homers and driving in 100 runs than there are at short. The O's might more easily fill a future hole at third base than one at shortstop. could even possibly move to third base.

Machado has not outgrown shortstop. At 6-foot-3 and 185 pounds, he is still not as big as Cal Ripken Jr. when he played short or even Houston phenom Carlos Correa.

I just think Machado provides more value at short in the future, and his big arm and improved foot speed will play very, very well in the future at that position. I predict he'll win Gold Gloves at shortstop as well.

Meanwhile, as for Machado's offense, that was pretty special in 2015. He hit .286 with 30 doubles, a triple, 35 homers, 102 runs and 86 RBIs. Machado also had a .359 on-base percentage, a .502 and an .861 OPS. Plus, he added 20 steals. He ranked fourth in the American League in runs, 10th in homers and OPS, tied for 14th in RBIs, tied for 17th in on- base percentage and 20th in batting average.

It seemed a combination of more strength and better plate discipline led to Machado's big year on offense. As some predicted, some of the doubles he was hitting did turn into homers. Plus, he developed a better eye at the plate that allowed him to get into more hitter's counts and chase fewer pitches. In his only previous full major league season, he walked 29 times in 2013. This past season he walked 70 times. I can foresee a day when he walks 100 times or more.

Simply stated, Machado put together a spectacular year in 2015 and there may be plenty more where that came from. At some point in the next 12-16 months, you would expect the Orioles to try to sign him to a new long-term contract. Orioles fans hope he will be on their team for many, many years. And at some point, he could be the club's shortstop as well.

Bundy banter: I was a call-in guest yesterday on "The Mid-Atlantic Sports Report" on MASN to talk about 's return to the mound in the . Click here to watch that.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/11/04/nationals-orioles-masn-dispute-tv-judge-ruling

Judge rules in favor of Orioles in MASN TV rights dispute with Nationals

By Dan Gartland / SI.com November 4, 2015

A New York judge has ruled in favor of the Orioles in their television rights dispute with the Nationals, according to court documents released Wednesday.

When the Nationals moved from Montreal to Washington in 2005, Baltimore owner agreed to give up territorial rights in exchange for the right to broadcast Nationals games on his television network, MASN.

The Nationals own a minority stake in the network and receive rights payments to have their games shown on the network. After an MLB arbitration panel ruled in Washington’s favor in a rights fee dispute, the Orioles filed a lawsuit.

The arbitration panel awarded the Nationals about $60 million per year in rights fees, an increase from the $40 million they currently receive. The Orioles are also paid $40 million annually. The judge’s ruling Wednesday threw out the arbitration decision.

The judge urged the parties use a third-party arbitration group to settle the matter.

After leading the New York Mets to the World Series, Terry Collins has signed a two-year contract extension, according to the New York Daily News.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2015/11/04/judge-rules-in-favor-of-oriolesmasn-in- ongoing.html

Judge rules in favor of Orioles, MASN in ongoing media rights dispute with Nationals

By Eric Fisher / SportsBusiness Daily November 4, 2015

New York state Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Marks today ruled in favor of the -controlledMASN in its case against Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals, vacating a league arbitration award in favor of the Nationals in their ongoing media rights dispute.

Marks’ ruling, arriving more than five months after oral arguments in New York found that law firm Proskauer Rose simultaneously representing MLB, the Nationals and members of the internal arbitration panel created a troubling conflict that “objectively demonstrates an utter lack for fairness.”

“Had MLB, the arbitrators, the Nationals and/or Proskauer taken some reasonable step to address (the Orioles’) concerns about the Nationals’ choice of counsel in the arbitration — or indeed any step at all — the court might well have been compelled to uphold the arbitral award,” Marks wrote in his decision. “But MASN and the Orioles have established that their well-documented concerns fell on entirely deaf ears.”

Marks has left it up to the parties themselves to determine next steps in the long-running dispute.

“If the current conflict remains, the parties might meet and confer regarding whether they can agree to a different neutral dispute resolution process,” he said. Orioles counsel Arnold Weiner said in a statement, “As we argued, Major League Baseball’s arbitration over the rights fees lacked the fundamental fairness that the Orioles had a right to deserve. We are hopeful that this fairness will be achieved in a future and independent process.”

MLB in a statement said, “We are reviewing the decision and have no further comment at this time.”

The dispute stems from the Nationals seeking a higher rights fee from MASN for airing their games. MASN currently pays $41 million annually, and the Nationals are seeking an increase to $60 million. A 2005 settlement agreement between MLB and the Baltimore Orioles created the framework for MASN, and a perpetual majority stake in the network for the Orioles, as compensation for the relocation of the Montreal Expos to nearby Washington. The settlement allows the Nats to seek a reset of their rights fees “to fair market value” every five years. The club did so in 2011 after an initial ramp-up period for the network, but the two sides remained apart by nearly $100 million a year.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25363614/judge-rules-in-favor-of-orioles-in- ongoing-masn-dispute-with-nationals

Judge rules in favor of Orioles in ongoing MASN dispute with Nationals

By Mike Axisa / CBSSports.com November 4, 2015

On Wednesday, New York State Supreme Court Justice Lawrence K. Marks tossed out an MLB arbitration ruling involving the Orioles, Nationals and broadcast rights fees from the Mid- Atlantic Sports Network, or MASN.

An arbitration ruling from June 2014 gave the Nationals nearly $300 million in broadcast dollars from 2012-16. As a result of Wednesday's ruling, the Nationals will take in only $40 million in broadcasting right fees per year, not the $60 million or so they had been awarded last year.

MASN broadcasts both the Nationals and Orioles games but the Orioles have a controlling stake in the network as part of a 2005 agreement brokered by baseball and then-commissioner Bud Selig to allow the relocation of the Montreal Expos to Washington. The D.C. area had long been considered part of the Orioles' broadcast market, and Orioles owner Peter Angelos opposed the relocation.

The dispute over the size of the Nationals' broadcast fees dates back to 2012, when the clubs were unable to agree on the Nationals' rights fees.

"While we are very pleased that the court vacated the award, and did so for good reason, it is unfortunate that we had to bring this matter to the courts in the first place," said Alan Rifkin, an attorney for the Orioles, in a statement. "Contracts are meant to be honored, and that includes honoring the integrity of the rights fee-setting process. We look forward to a fair and neutral process before an objective decision-maker in the future."

A Nationals spokesperson told Wagner the team is assessing the ruling. "We are reviewing the decision and have no further comment at this time," added an MLB spokesperson.

Marks could have sent the case back to MLB's arbitration panel or an independent organization. He did not mandate the next move in the legal dispute.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2015/11/04/judge-rules-in-favor-of-orioles-in-tv-rights-dispute- with-nationals/

Judge Rules in Favor of Orioles in TV Rights Dispute With Nationals

By Matthew Futterman / The Wall Street Journal November 4, 2015

The Baltimore Orioles only won 81 games this past season but the franchise got a huge victory Wednesday when a judge in New York threw out an earlier arbitration ruling that would have forced the Orioles-controlled regional sports network to pay the Washington Nationals nearly $300 million in television rights fees.

It is rare for courts to vacate arbitration decisions when the two parties have previously agreed to resolve disputes through the arbitration process. During the arbitration hearing, the Nationals were represented by the law firm Proskauer Rose, which also represents Major League Baseball.

The Orioles and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, of which the franchise owns 90%, objected to Proskauer’s participation, as well as MLB’s involvement in the process, including its $25 million loan to the Nationals, and what it alleged as a failure to properly evaluate the market for the Nationals’ television rights.

In his decision, New York Supreme Court Judge Lawrence Marks stated that the involvement of the Proskauer firm in the case at a time when it was also representing the league and the three owners who were serving on the arbitration panel deprived the Orioles and MASN of a fair hearing.

A spokesman for MLB said league officials were reviewing the decision but declined further comment.

“While we are very pleased that the court vacated the award, and did so for good reason, it is unfortunate that we had to bring this matter to the courts in the first place,” said Alan Rifkin, counsel to the Orioles and a MASN general partner.” Contracts are meant to be honored, and that includes honoring the integrity of the rights fee-setting process. We look forward to a fair and neutral process before an objective decision-maker in the future.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2015/11/04/judge-rules-in-favor-of- masn-and-orioles-tosses-out-mlb-panels-ruling-for-nats/

Judge rules in favor of MASN and Orioles, tosses out MLB panel’s ruling for Nats

By James Wagner / Washington Post November 4, 2015

The Nationals and Major League Baseball were dealt a significant legal blow Wednesday when a New York Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which is majority controlled by the Orioles, and tossed out a decision by an MLB panel to give the Nationals more in television rights fees. In a dispute that has dragged on for years, Judge Lawrence Marks issued his ruling five months after final arguments in May.

Marks agreed with MASN’s concerns about the MLB panel. He found troubling the connection between the law firm Proskauer and the Nationals, MLB, representatives of the teams that made up the MLB arbitration panel (the Pirates, Rays and Mets) and their business entities.

“Had MLB, the abitrators, the Nationals and/or Proskauer taken some reasonable steps to address petitioners’ concerns about the Nationals’ choice of counsel in the arbitration — or indeed any step at all — the Court might well have been compelled to uphold the arbitral award,” Marks wrote in the ruling. “… But MASN and the Orioles have established that their well-documented concerns fell on entirely deaf ears.”

The MLB panel ruling from June 2014 awarded the Nationals nearly $300 million in TV rights fees during the 2012-2016 “reset” period. But now, the Nationals will continue to receive the payments under the current contract — the payments they disputed in the first place.

The Nationals and MASN have been squabbling over TV rights fees since 2012, when the reset period first started, and the dispute isn’t over. The decision could be appealed to a higher court in New York, or the dispute could return to an arbitration panel.

Marks wrote that he didn’t have the authority to tell the sides where to continue the dispute given the existing contract. But if the issues with the process are cleared up, he wrote, the sides could return to the MLB panel or seek an outside resolution through the American Arbitration Association.

“While we are very pleased that the court vacated the award, and did so for good reason, it is unfortunate that we had to bring this matter to the courts in the first place,” said Alan Rifkin, an attorney for the Orioles. “Contracts are meant to be honored, and that includes honoring the integrity of the rights fee-setting process. We look forward to a fair and neutral process before an objective decision-maker in the future.”

The Nationals are assessing the ruling, a team spokesperson said. MLB didn’t immediately have a comment.

More to come.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/judge-tosses-arbitration-that-said-masn-owes- nats-298m/2015/11/04/ace802ee-8328-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html?tid=twisira

Judge tosses arbitration that said MASN owes Nats $298M

By Ronald Blum / Associated Press November 4, 2015

NEW YORK — A New York state judge has thrown out an arbitration decision that said the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which is controlled by the Baltimore Orioles, owes the Washington Nationals about $298 million for the team’s 2012-16 television rights.

MASN and the Orioles sued in New York State Supreme Court last year, claiming the arbitration was improper because the law firm Proskauer Rose, which represented the Nationals, at times worked for MLB and the teams of all three arbitrators.

Supreme Court Justice Lawrence K. Marks issued his ruling Wednesday, nearly six months after hearing arguments.

“MASN and the Orioles have established that their well-documented concerns fell on entirely deaf ears,” Marks wrote. “The court concludes that this complete inaction objectively demonstrates an utter lack of concern for fairness of the proceeding.”

MASN was established in March 2005 after the Montreal Expos relocated to Washington and became the Nationals, moving into what had been Baltimore’s exclusive broadcast territory since 1972. The Orioles were given a supermajority partnership interest in MASN, starting at 90 percent, and Washington made a $75 million payment to the network for an initial 10 percent stake.

The agreement called for the Nationals’ equity to increase 1 percent annually, starting after the 2009 season, with a cap of 33 percent. The network’s rights payments to each team were set at $20 million apiece in 2005 and 2006, rising to $25 million in 2007, with $1 million annual increases through 2011.

When the parties could not agree on a rights fee for 2012-16, they appeared in April 2012 before baseball’s Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee, which included Pittsburgh Pirates president Frank Coonelly, Tampa Bay Rays principal owner and New York Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon. The committee issued its decision in June 2014, saying MASN owed Washington approximately $53 million for 2012, with the amount rising to nearly $67 million for 2016. The Nationals had asked for $109 million for 2012 and the MASN said the figure should be $34 million.

In addition to objecting to Proskauer’s role, MASN and the Orioles claimed it was not fair MLB gave the Nationals a $25 million loan in August 2013 in anticipation it would be repaid from higher broadcast revenue.

Marks did not tell the parties what to do next but offered suggestions.

“Because it is ultimately the Nationals’ choice of counsel that created the conflict, the parties may wish to meet and confer as to whether the Nationals are willing and able to retain counsel who do not concurrently represent MLB or the individual arbitrators and their clubs, and thereby return to arbitration by the RSDC,” Marks said. “If the current conflict remains, the parties might meet and confer regarding whether they can ... agree to a different neutral dispute resolution process.”

“We look forward to a fair and neutral process before an objective decision-maker in the future,” Alan Rifkin, MASN’s managing partner and an Orioles’ lawyer, said in a statement.

Washington and MLB did not respond to requests for comment.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/judge-rules-in-orioles-favor-in-masn- dispute.html?utm_source=fantasyleaguegm.com

Judge Rules In Orioles Favor In MASN Dispute

By Jeff Todd / MLBTradeRumors.com November 4, 2015

New York Supreme Court Judge Lawrence Marks has ruled in favor of the Orioles and against the Nationals in a long-running dispute relating to the rights fees owed to the latter team by the jointly-owned Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN). (Hat tip to James Wagner of the Washington Post, on Twitter.) MASN, which is controlled and majority-owned by the Orioles, brought the lawsuit to challenge an arbitration award that purported to settle the annual television broadcast fees owed by the network to the Nationals (who own a minority share of MASN).

Today’s ruling vacates that award. If upheld on appeal, it would require the parties to renegotiate and/or re-arbitrate the rights fees. Importantly, the decision does not address the underlying substantive dispute, let alone decide that in favor of the Orioles/MASN.

The root of the dispute dates back to the dealmaking that paved the way for the Expos-turned- Nationals organization to move to D.C. The Orioles opposed the intrusion on their market, of course, and the compromise ultimately included a deal in which the O’s would maintain a significant ownership percentage of MASN.

Annual fees for the Nationals’ broadcast rights were also covered in the resulting set of contracts, with the first several seasons’ fees pre-established at fairly low rates. Pursuant to the agreement, the annual rights value was to be re-negotiated after 2011 (and every five years thereafter) to arrive at a fair market value of those rights.

When that negotiation failed, the arbitration was initiated, with the Orioles proposing a $34MM payout for 2012 and the Nationals requesting $109MM. The panel hearing the case was a league committee known as the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC). Its members, at the time, were Rays owner Stuart Sternberg, Pirates president Frank Coonelly, and Mets COO Jeff Wilpon. MLB itself, including now-commissioner Rob Manfred, also played a major role in the arbitration.

The panel ultimately decided upon a $53MM rights fee value for the 2012 season, which would rise steadily to $66MM in 2016 (thus covering the five-year period in question). But it held off on formally issuing its decision for about two years, allowing then-commissioner Bud Selig to attempt to work out a compromise, which (per the ruling) would have involved a $1B+ sale of MASN to Comcast (which obviously never occurred). In the meantime, MLB fronted the Nationals the difference between the fees they were receiving from MASN and the value that the panel had determined.

A formal decision was issued on June 30 of last year, and the Orioles instituted the present litigation shortly thereafter. Baltimore challenged a number of aspects of the arbitration, including the involvement of the league at the time and its decision to advance money to the Nationals.

Though overturning an arbitration award is an exceedingly difficult task, the court sided with MASN and the Orioles. Interestingly, though, none of the above factors played into the decision, which focused on the highly deferential standard of review and noted that the agreement had contemplated an “inside baseball” arbitration panel.

The ultimate basis cited by the court in vacating the award — and the issue that will presumably be tested on appeal — is the involvement of the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP. Not only was Proskauer representing the Nationals in the arbitration, the court explained, it was currently representing Major League Baseball in numerous other matters — with four particular attorneys sharing responsibility for both clients. Though MASN and the Orioles repeatedly raised this issue, the panel didn’t take “any step at all” to deal with the potential bias that resulted.

Applying the relevant standard of “evident partiality,” the court determined there was sufficient cause to overturn the decision of the panel. Quoting Pitta v. Hotel Ass’n of N.Y. City, Inc., 806 F.3d 419, 423-24(2d Cir. 1986), Judge Marks explained: “[T]his complete inaction objectively demonstrates an utter lack of concern for fairness of the proceeding that is ‘so inconsistent with basic principles of justice’ that the award must be vacated.”

The actual basis for the ruling is important in several regards. For one, it narrows the issues to be addressed on appeal, though the Orioles could attempt to challenge the judge’s refusal to offer relief on the other grounds argued. (Notably, the court noted in its ruling that the factual setting it considered was without precedent, making this case ripe for consideration in an appellate proceeding.) And it also leaves open the possibility that the parties could return to the same panel that decided the dispute in the first place in a second arbitration.

All said, the ruling represents a significant victory for the Orioles’ side of things — in large part because of the leverage it gives the organization in negotiations. Continued litigation and re- arbitration will, obviously, be quite expensive. And the Nationals now have no argument to demand immediate payment of a vacated award, keeping the cash in Baltimore’s pocket. It’s notable, also, that the original five-year rights fee period is now almost up, meaning the parties will soon need to sort out fees for the 2017-2021 time frame as well.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/baltimore-orioles-triumph-mlb-civil-837077

Baltimore Orioles Triumph in MLB Civil War Over TV Money

A New York judge agrees that in adjudicating a spat between two teams, MLB demonstrated an utter lack of concern for fairness.

By Eriq Gardner / HollywoodReporter.com November 4, 2015

The City Royals aren't the only team that emerged victorious this week. Thanks to a big — and consequential — ruling on Wednesday, the Baltimore Orioles and its Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN) have done the rare feat of overturning an arbitration award.

As The Hollywood Reporter first revealed, Major League Baseball and two of its most prominent owners — Peter Angelos of the Baltimore Orioles and of the Washington Nationals — have been engaged in a vicious legal fight that spilled into open court.

The dispute dates back to when the Nationals were relocated from Montreal in 2005 and Angelos sought to protect his home TV market. Back then, the parties worked out a deal whereby the Orioles would hold a majority partnership profit interest in MASN and get to telecast Nationals games at a substantial discount from 2005 to 2011. After that, MASN would be obligated to pay the Nationals "fair market value."

Thereafter, the parties went to arbitration to figure out that "fair market value." The Nationals thought they should be paid about $109 million starting in 2012 while the Orioles believed the better amount to be $34 million. On June 30, 2014, an MLB committee comprising the chief operating officer of the New York Mets, the president of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the owner of the Tampa Bay Rays decided that $53 million was the right sum for 2012, with bumps that would take fees to $66 million in 2016.

With the MLB commissioner threatening the teams for going public, and with the Baltimore Orioles estimating the lost asset value of its network to be $800 million, an attempt was made to vacate the arbitration award. Angelos' team complained of the league's secret $25 million payment to the Nationals and accused MLB of "corruption" and "fraud" in the arbitration process.

In the ruling today, New York Supreme Court judge Lawrence Marks notes that arbitration awards are rarely vacated and rejects some of the arguments brought forth by the Orioles. For example, the judge isn't persuaded that MLB commissioner Rob Manfred behaved inappropriately and denied fairness in the proceeding. The MLB's $25 million loan to the Nationals during the pendency of the dispute also isn't enough to overturn the arbitration award as the judge notes it was "fully disclosed" to MASN and didn't raise an issue about fairness.

But the role of lawyers in the process is what gives the Orioles and MASN victory.

The law firm of Proskauer Rose represented the Nationals at the arbitration, but also represented the MLB in other matters including the antitrust lawsuit over TV deals primed to go to trial next year, the Mets in the Bernie Madoff affair and the Tampa Bay Rays in salary disputes with players.

"Here, there are objective facts that are unquestionably inconsistent with impartiality," writes Marks. "Had MLB, the arbitrators, the Nationals and/or Proskauer taken some reasonable step to address petitioners' concerns about the Nationals' choice of counsel in the arbitration — or indeed any step at all — the Court might well have been compelled to uphold the arbitral award under the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act], But MASN and the Orioles have established that their well-documented concerns fell on entirely deaf ears. Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that this complete inaction objectively demonstrates an utter lack of concern for fairness of the proceeding that is 'so inconsistent with basic principles of justice' that the award must be vacated."

The Orioles and MASN are celebrating their big victory.

"While we are very pleased that the court vacated the award, and did so for good reason, it is unfortunate that we had to bring this matter to the courts in the first place," says Alan Rifkin, an attorney for the Orioles. "Contracts are meant to be honored, and that includes honoring the integrity of the rights fee-setting process. We look forward to a fair and neutral process before an objective decision-maker in the future.”

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/11/04/mlb-slammed-for-its-utter-lack-of-concern-for-fairness-in- its-arbitration-with-the-orioles/

MLB slammed for its “utter lack of concern for fairness” in its arbitration with the Orioles

By Craig Calcaterra / NBCSports.com November 4, 2015

For years, the Orioles and the TV network they own — MASN — has been in battle with the Nationals and Major League Baseball over money. Specifically, the notion of how much money MASN has to pay the Nats for the broadcast rights to Nationals games, which also appear on the network.

This is not historically been a freely negotiated amount. MASN has gotten Nats games on the cheap for years as part of the agreement in which the Orioles allowed the Nats to move into their territory after the franchise abandoned Montreal. The Nats get Washington and MASN — again, owned by Peter Angelos and the Orioles — get to make money on underpriced Nats programming. Per that agreement, the sides were to renegotiate after a set time, with the Nats getting something more like market rates as a result. Those negotiations have not gone well as the market value of TV rights has skyrocketed and MASN either can’t or won’t pay for both Nats and Orioles rights at such high rates.

Last year a three-member MLB arbitration panel decided that the Nationals should receive about $60 million in broadcast rights fees per year from MASN, which is WAY more than MASN and the Orioles want to pay. They thus appealed the ruling, not simply because they don’t like the number, but because they contend that the arbitration itself was gamed.

How? Because of the lawyers involved. The Nationals’ law firm — Prosskauer Rose — commonly represents Major League Baseball and its owners as well. It also happened to represent the teams from which the three owners/team officials on the Nats-O’s arbitration panel sat (i.e. Jeff Wilpon of the Mets, Stuart Sternberg of the Rays and Frank Coonelly of the Pirates). The panel ruled against the Orioles and MASN, and the O’s and MASN argued that it did so because the arbitration was biased in favor of MLB and, in turn, the Nats.

Today a New York judge agreed, tossing out the ruling and excoriating Major League Baseball for an inherently unfair arbitration process, specifically because the same lawyers represented both a party to the arbitration AND the arbitrators themselves:

The court had a hard time getting to that point because it could literally not find another example where the entity which ran the arbitration, here MLB, allowed for the arbitrators and one of the parties to have such a blatant conflict of interest. The court seems absolutely gobsmacked, in fact, that MLB didn’t even attempt to do something to remedy this basic unfairness in the process. I’m not sure myself why MLB wouldn’t do that, given that even a first-year lawyer could identify this fundamental flaw in the proceeding and suggest that, maybe, something should be done about it.

But that’s sports league culture for you. A fundamental arrogance at the league/ownership level, which is comprised of people who (a) have been selected to go along to get along with the league simply in order to be allowed into the ownership ranks in the first place; and (b) who don’t have anyone outside of their little club who can ever tell them what to do including, in most cases, courts and Congress. They have spent most of their professional lives and all of their professional sports lives doing exactly what they wanted and answering to no one, so why should they bother to do so here?

Like the NFL and Deflategate, MLB just got its butt handed to it by a judge who was nowhere near as impressed with the league’s handling of internal matters as the league itself is. Now, the league will either have to accept terms from Peter Angelos or go through the entire process again, during which time the Nats will continue to not receive market value for their TV rights and the league’s legal bills go up and up.

And it all could’ve been avoided with some basic, elementary prudence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/11/04/after-five-month-delay-ny-supreme-court- justice-rules-in-favor-of-masn-in-dispute-over-media-rights/

After Five Month Delay, NY Supreme Court Justice Rules In Favor Of MASN In Dispute Over Media Rights

By Maury Brown / Forbes November 4, 2015

After 5 months of waiting, a New York Supreme Court judge has ruled in a media rights case that pitted the Baltimore Orioles against the Washington Nationals and Major League Baseball. Justice Lawrence Marks ruled in favor the Orioles-owned Mid-Atlantic Sports Network (MASN). In doing so, Justice Marks vacated an MLB arbitration award to the Nationals.

As part of the Montreal Expos relocation to Washington, DC, MASN was created to offset some of the losses the Baltimore Orioles claimed they would incur due to the rechristened Nationals encroaching on broadcast territory. The solution was the creation of MASN that would be majority owned by the Orioles with the Nationals as minority partners.

It was agreed upon the creation of MASN, beginning in 2011 the Orioles and Nationals would negotiate every five years in good faith, media rights based on the latest market information. If the sides could did not reach a deal they would go to arbitration. When a MASN hired group came up with the determination of what the Nationals should receive for media rights, they balked at the recommendation.

The MLB created Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC) that served as the arbitration panel consists of several MLB owners. At the time of the dispute that included Stuart Sternberg, the principle owner of the Tampa Bay Rays, Frank Coonley, a former league executive that is now the president of the Pittsburgh Pirates, and Jeffrey Wilpon, the COO of the New York Mets. Then Exec. VP of MLB, Rob Manfred oversaw the meetings. Manfred is now the commissioner of the league. Representing as counsel for the Washington Nationals was Proskaurer Rose LLP. With the rights fee negotiations stalled past when the Nationals should have had a deal in place, MLB floated the club a $25 million loan.

MASN took exception to Proskauer representing the Nats given that they had done work prior with the league, including the Rays and Mets, as well as the $25 million loan. Manfred said that the RSDC “lacked the authority” to dismiss Proskauer.

The RSDC ruled on June 30, 2014 in favor of the Nationals saying,“The Nationals contend that the fair market value of their 2012 rights is roughly $109 million, while MASN values those same rights as $34 million.” Based upon that, calculations for the next five years were calculated with the Nationals receiving $53 million for 2012 and rights fees to escalate each year by $3 million “culminating in $66 million in 2016.” The award also stated that “[n]et of these fees, MASN’s projected operating profit would grow from roughly $14 million in 2012 to $24 million in 2016.”

After the award was given, MASN filed suit on July 2, 2014 to have the ruling vacated and that eventually got the case in front of Justice Marks.

http://www.camdenchat.com/2015/11/4/9670198/masn-court-case-orioles-nationals

MASN court case: Judge rules in favor of Orioles, against Nationals, but it might not mean anything

By Mark Brown / CamdenChat.com November 4, 2015

The verdict is in and a judge agrees: the Orioles got screwed in their hearing in front of baseball's revenue panel concerning MASN rights fees. However, this ruling does not resolve the long-term dispute and the next step is unclear.

Nearly six months after the trial hearing, and three years after the dispute began between MASN and the Nationals, the verdict is in on the court case involving tens of millions of dollars of rights fees. The thirty-page decision provides the immediate conclusion that the court has thrown out the ruling made by baseball's panel - a victory for the Orioles - but offers no other resolution to the case.

You can read in more length about the circumstances behind the case in an article I wrote last year. The very short version is that the Orioles and Nationals ended up in front of a baseball- controlled panel that acts as the arbitrator when there are conflicts between teams of this nature.

The Orioles felt like they were getting screwed by this panel, in large part because the law firm (Proskauer Rose) that represented the Nationals in front of this panel was concurrently representing teams who were on the panel, as well as the league. The specific attorneys involved were also involved in other cases around baseball.

With this situation, the Orioles argued, the ruling of the panel could not possibly be fair and must be thrown out. In his ruling, Judge Lawrence Marks accepted this rationale and threw out the panel's award:

Here, there are objective facts that are unquestionably inconsistent with impartiality. Had MLB, the arbitrators, the Nationals, and/or Proskauer taken some reasonable step ... or any step at all, the Court might well have been compelled to uphold the arbitral award under the FAA. But MASN and the Orioles have established that their well-documented concerns fell entirely on deaf ears. Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that this complete inaction objectively demonstrates an utter lack of concern for fairness of the proceeding that is "so inconsistent with basic principles of justice" that the award must be vacated.

In an amusing side note, the case cited in the quote in the above paragraph is Hooters of America v. Phillips.

However, the judge also did not accept the argument on the part of the Orioles that the whole matter should be handed over to an independent arbitration panel. In a footnote on the last page of the ruling, a serious case of what in the journalism world would be called "burying the lede", the judge offers that "because it is ultimately the Nationals' choice of counsel that created the conflict, the parties may wish to meet and confer as to whether the Nationals are willing and able to retain counsel (with no conflicts), and thereby return to the RSDC, pursuant to the parties' Agreement."

He adds that if there is a continuing conflict about the RSDC, the parties "may meet and confer regarding whether they can agree to a different dispute process." He mentions as just one possibility "a three-person panel in accordance with the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association."

So for today the Orioles have won, in essence because the judge agrees that MLB and the Nationals kind of screwed them out of a fair hearing. This is a very big deal because as Judge Marks writes in the first paragraph of his ruling, the petition to vacate an arbitration award is "a not uncommon application to a court yet one that is rarely granted."

The whole issue is still far from resolved, though, because they could end up back in front of the same panel (now with different members) with the Nationals having different lawyers. Or the two parties could end up in front of an independent panel that could decide just about anything.

All of which creates the very real possibility that this dispute, which covers rights fees from the years 2012-2016, will not have been resolved by the time that period ends. Oh, and whenever it does have a resolution, under the current contractual agreement, there'll be a brand new fight over 2017-2021 rights fees that's now just about a year away from kicking off.

The only thing that's certain is that neither side can be very certain about what's going to happen. The Nationals don't get the money they wanted right now, and the Orioles can't be sure that they'll get to keep the money they've wanted to keep. OK, so we better make it that there are two certain things. The other certain thing is that the lawyers will keep getting paid.