Gaslamp Ball

theodore donald kerabatsos - January 12, 2012 reply

Darren Smith spilled the beans on this the other day...

He thought the deal was basically done, so he felt free to disclose information that he had been keeping off the air for a while. He said that there were a bunch of “people” (presumably including some other owners) who wanted to see Moorad fail. They assumed his ownership group wouldn’t be able to come up with all of the money to purchase the team and they don’t want an ownership group that’s just barely scraping by on funds.

He said the people (owners) that are against the Moorad group basically fall into two groups: (1) people who are gun-shy about letting a group own a team without significant financial backing because of what just happened to the Dodges and (2) people who don’t like Moorad for various reasons — he may have burned some of these other owners as an agent and they may be carrying a personal vendetta against him.

The other owners really like John Moores and it was presumed that if Moorad could come up with (a) the full amount of money and (b) an endorsement from Moores, that the transfer would be approved. Moorad had both as of Monday. It’s looking like even an endorsement from Moores isn’t enough to convince everyone.

Jeff Moorad is our generation's Bill Veeck!

Duke Street Kings - January 12, 2012 reply

ummm, ok

Owners must have been suspicious because they were paying with money from their greasy pockets

Moorad must have tried a few of those burger places and didn’t grab napkins.

SEEEEELIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 reply

This should really be green.

If MLB doesn't approve they would have to provide a reason.

I guess that they do approve. But if they don’t it seems detrimental to baseball overall. Why force an owner who wants out to stay around when he approves of a new owner that has the money?

Moorad isn't a Selig crony, is he.

That’s why he’s not invited to “The Club”

bcline760 - January 12, 2012 reply

Axion - January 12, 2012 reply

I've read that Moorad is still part owner of the D-Backs

Could be a problem, though, you’d think they’d have said it would be a problem a few years ago unless they were sure he wouldn’t complete a deal.

I thought I read

He sold all his remaining interest in the D-Bags awhile back.

Seems like everything I see says he would have to sell it

But, I don’t see anything that says he did.

Did you try Google?

Link

John Gennaro - January 12, 2012 reply

Actually, I did

And it never gave me this link

theodore donald kerabatsos - January 12, 2012 reply

Think about this from the perspective of the other owners...

Say you’re the Steinbrenners or John Henry. Over the past three seasons the Padres group has put almost nothing into their on-field product. Meanwhile, they’re collecting tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing. This ownership group is scraping together every last dime they have in order to pay for the team. Also consider that once they assume ownership of the team, it comes with something like 100 or 200 million dollars in stadium debt. Does it seem like payroll will be jumping up any time soon? No, they’ll probably be collecting revenue sharing dollars for the foreseeable future.

I can absolutely understand why other owners would be hesitant about this. Especially when you look at the mess that was just created by the Dodgers.

On the one hand, the owners don’t want someone like Mark Cuban who will spend like crazy in order to win, but on the other hand they don’t want to create a financially unstable franchise that will struggle to pay its bills and earn money for the league.

San Diego will always be a revenue sharing team

it financially doesn’t make sense for them to be one of baseballs top spenders, regardless of who their owner is

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

Theodore,

I think you nailed it.

They cannot force Moores to keep the team forever

What happens if they kill the deal and the next guy offers Moores less for the team? That could get ugly.

Does it then turn into a Texas Rangers situation

where its sold through the courts or something like that?

Possibley

If they don’t let Moores sell the team, the divorce may push him into bankruptcy.

I support this

if it means The Gwynn ends up owning the team.

John Gennaro - January 12, 2012 reply

All the retired Padres numbers come together to own the Padres

Well, almost all of them.

"What do you mean by 'almost all of them?' Explain that to me."

Sam is gonna be soooooo pissed...

It turns in to

MLB ownership.

SanDiegoKev - January 12, 2012 reply

It's a good thing we hired Omar Minaya

yeah

We’re all ready now a la the Expos.

SanDiegoKev - January 12, 2012 reply

The owners shot down a multi-billionaire with cash (Cuban)

but allowed a debt-ridden multimillionaire to buy the Dodgers. The Padres and their “layaway” consortium are NOW making them nervous? It’s a bell that cannot be unrung, so why not let the sale go through?

EvilSammy - January 12, 2012 reply

Can we blame the Dodgers for this?

I don’t know if we can technically, but I really really want to.

SolanaFan - January 12, 2012 reply

When in doubt, always blame the Dodgers.

No approval = no tv deal = No games on television this year

This could set them back five years.

theodore donald kerabatsos - January 12, 2012 reply

Just because there's no approval doesn't mean there's no owner.

John Moores is technically still the owner. I’m sure he wouldn’t allow the team to go into the season without a TV deal.

BRING BACK MOORES!

John Gennaro - January 12, 2012 reply

I always loved that guy.

theodore donald kerabatsos - January 12, 2012 reply

I would be more than happy with Moore's owning the team again

I know its a pipe dream, but that guy owned the team because he loved baseball, as opposed to our new owner who seems to only be looking at it from an investment standpoint… I know, I know… not that there’s anything wrong with that.

theodore donald kerabatsos - January 12, 2012 reply

I think your memories of the John Moores era may be a little hazy.

People hated that guy when he finally decided to sell. Everyone thought he had basically ripped off the city and fans by getting a new park and axing spending on the team. All you heard was about how he didn’t give a crap about baseball and just wanted to make money.

he only axed spending

to pay for the divorce
The payroll was $70 mil before that

Exactly

Anyone who’s been through a divorce knows there’s a lot of collateral damage that you really can’t help. And while I was angry at the time just like everyone else, in hindsight I am really now able to enjoy the stuff that he did as owner of the Padres.
I know that you guys love… and I mean LOVE the idea of not spending money. I mean, there are dudes here who are more than apologists for the current regime… they actually seem like they would be annoyed if we ever ended up anywhere out of the bottom end of spending in the MLB….
But I like how Moores would sometimes write a check that definitely wasn’t covered by team proft. It made you have hope that a big name free agent could actually come here…. And sometimes, they did. And one time, it made for a freaking amazing WS run.

I liked Moores for that too

But guys like that are few and far between.

If he'd only kept it in his pants

He’d still be cutting the occasional check for us.

athletics68 - January 12, 2012 reply

Nobody here loves the idea of not spending money.

I just like the spending of money WISELY

Getting into bad contracts isn’t spending money wisely.

I won'

I won't name names, there's one that comes to mind that's actually against spending money even if we have it.. on free agents

Name names. Cite evidence. Back up your damn argument.

Unless you don’t have an argument.

Bro... in a case where I'm citing evidence about a specific event then yes I'll cite evidence with links and what not

But I’m not going to call people out. Calm down buddy. Talking about payroll on a last place team is no reason to start cursing at people.

Being asked to back up your vague shittalk about whoever you feel like pitching a fit on this particular day

is no reason to call someone condescending names like ‘Bro’ and ‘buddy’ and acting like you’re taking the moral high road and getting all “OMG, my virgin ears!” over the word ‘damn’. Here’s some cursing for you: This son of a bitch sitting right the fuck right here thinks that’s a bunch of goddamn bullshit.

Hey listen, Boss

Keep the jets cool, Chief. Gotta keep things on the level, sport.

I love “yobro” talk.

The Jets are always cool.

Proof.

Sorry, Bub.

Thanks for the reminder, friend. For the record, my jets are cool as a cucumber, pal. Just using the English language to its best ends to illustrate a point, homie.

I may be one you are thinking of

but its not that I am oppose to spending money. I just belive most FA contracts are bad (the big name ones).

Ron Mexico - January 12, 2012 reply

I am against this unless its smart.

Most worthwhile free agents we cannot afford because they want bad contracts. NAME ME!

we signed big name free agents?

are you thinking of john mabry or Wally Joyner

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

Or... assumed high salaries of valuable players via trade

with some mistakes (see Chan Ho Park) But regardless. It was fun for me. I enjoyed it. If I’m wrong for enjoying a time when we had an owner who wrote unwise checks or took on salary then fine, I’ll be a mindless fan.

All I took from that:

I’ll be a mindless fan.

His name is Cub Buster.

IF all he thinks about is the Cubs all he knows about baseball finances is getting into long term, terrible, backloaded deals.

So mindless is a good description.

Don't be a jerk about someone you disagree with

Speaking of which, you never answered me.

Have you ever been to Cincinnati?

One more time....

Yes I have.

Got any other brilliant conspiracy theories……

Don't worry about it Strummer....

Looks like TTG must have gotten some bad news from the latest Beckett about his rookie George Arias card or something. Baseball cards were awesome…. I loved them when I was about 10 or so.

I’d rather stay a child and keep my self-respect if being an adult means being like you.

I’ll stay young ’til I die.

sixpakfrombelgium - January 12, 2012 reply

I was so hoping for a link to 7 seconds

Awesome!

whoa there

justdave - January 12, 2012 reply

One more time?

Show your work.
Also, do you even know what a conspiracy theory is?

Because the Name Cubbuster

Is of Course a reference to my love for the Cubs organization?

He didn't say it was love.

Nice try.

(Not really; it was a terrible try)

Oh just kiss him already

Ketchup - January 13, 2012 reply

I don't kiss dudes.

I only bang ’em.

TheThinGwynn - January 13, 2012 reply

I've seen some conflicting reports

as to if the TV deal was dependant on the ownership change

kevintheoman - January 12, 2012 reply

Being a Part of the Club of Elites that have the Money to own a Sports Franchise

Is maybe something that the rest of the group of owners see as being a bit out of Moorad’s league. Sure…. he made a few million as an agent, but there’s a big difference between him and, say, Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, or John Moores. Maybe this is a case of a fraternity not necessarily wanting to let a guy in who doesn’t necessarily belong rubbing elbows with guys that are miles beyond him, class-wise. I’m not saying it’s nice of them… but I’d understand.

It be fitting if Moores had to go through a 2 year law suit

to get out of his ownership.

jbox - January 12, 2012 reply

almost feel sad for the multi-millionaire.

Ron Mexico - January 12, 2012 reply

What really makes this deal stink...

is that a question of approval by the other owners was never brought up previous to this…I smell a rat.

Jsn L - January 12, 2012 reply

Hacksaw is spewing unsubstantiated nonsense.

So the usual, then?

yup

not really

if MLB would not let Frank McCourt pay down his debt with the upfront payment from Fox
then they are being consistent by not letting the Moorad group pay off the team with the upfront payment from Fox
MLB finally gets it. The want to see the money on the field, not in the owners pockets – especially since they are subsidizing the Padres with $35 mil every year.

I think this is BS

If that’s the issue, then the problem is in how they decided to make things “fair” through revenue sharing. Like I said above, it’s not a requirement to operate a baseball team at a loss.

I don't think revenue sharing is the problem

if Moorad is taking the $150 mil (a made up number) upfront payment from Fox and using that to payoff the remaining amount to Moores – that is the problem.
With a payroll of $50 mil a year ($35 mil coming from MLB) – other owners don’t see much of this money being used to improve the team.

But if the money is sitting in escrow

Then how can they prove that the money is being used that way? Obviously before the TV deal is approved, then don’t have the TV money, so Moorad’s group still got together $200 million. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a shady way of buying the team, but that it would be REALLY tough to prove that it was the case.

the other owners are not stupid

they know that the money is fungible and see the game that the Moorad group is playing

What could they be worried about though?

Are they worried that the Padres will literally NOT field a team in 2013? If the Padres field a team with all guys who are under team control and eligible to only be paid league minimum, can the owners complain that they aren’t “trying”?

I know it makes no sense

but maybe they want to see good baseball in San Diego

We won 90 games 2 years ago.

We have never lost 54 games like the “tanking” DBag’s did in 2002.

WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT PADRES BASEBALL IS GOOD BASEBALL!

Average? Yes. But its not terrible bad “not good” baseball. Sometimes we are really good.

Sorry I am upset that people still, after all sorts of evidence provided, still think that Padres baseball is somehow… “not good”.

I meant... only won 54 games.

Why are you so inclined to champion for our owner to make a profit on Padres Baseball?

I mean, I’m as fiscally conservative as the next guy and think people should be allowed some freedom with their money. But this is a provately run orgranization of entertainment. Maybe this group of owners doesn’t want to see their expensive teams/toys stucks having to risk injury by playing 3-12 games a year against an inferior product while shelling out millions a year in luxury tax to them. I get that, and I get Selig trying to hold it up while making false excuses to do so.

Sports Business

It’s my schooling. I’m all for cheaper beer, $5 tickets and free parking too.

And practically speaking, if that’s really what the owners were worried about, they’d rework the media markets and institute a salary cap.

now

that is crazy talk

mrbarneydangles - January 12, 2012 reply

So it sounds like its a technicality holding it up now?

Leave it to Selig to make things difficult…

athletics68 - January 12, 2012 reply

At least he isn't nixing the deal for "baseball reasons"

can we all just agree that Moorad's face in that picture is priceless?

justdave - January 12, 2012 reply

Moorad

always reminds me of City of Tiny Lights
“City of tiny lites
Maybe you should know
That it’s over there
In the tiny dirt somewhere
You can see it any time
When you get the squints
From your downers and your wine…”
FZ

Maybe that's the problem!

There’s no value attached to his face. Somebody get a $20 and some masking tape!

Technical problems?

Is it plugged in?

Axion - January 12, 2012 reply

I wonder if they've tried rebooting.

shoot this may take awhile

who knows how many hours have been wasted on hold waiting for technical support

i bet they have crappy hold music too.

my experience with technical support

if you yell louder…they will understand you

twss

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

Rumor: Sale may be held off until April

Which may mean that the owners wanted to see the Fox money first……

THEY’RE ALL IN THIS THING TOGETHER!!!!

hmmm

could it have to do with the Dodger sale? As in they may be some technicallity in the agreement that they don’t want the McCourts to use against them?

Or it could just be that “Bob” in MLB Approvals in the MLB Front office is on a Alaskan fishing trip and won’t be back to lat March. And Bob is the only one with the approval stamp (an actual stamp that he puts down on the paper after the vote…no stamp and the vote seems lifeless, and they don’t want a lifeless vote.)

Ron Mexico - January 12, 2012 reply

The joy of being a Padre fan

is seeing everything go wrong no matter what

TheAxManCometh - January 12, 2012 reply

and yet we criticize

each other on here for being cynical

Go figure!

wow..I had almost joked that about the padres not voting for Buds extension

turns out it wouldn’t have been a <a href=joke" target="new">

and yes, i suck at links and html. forgive me

I don't like the sound of this:

JonHeymanCBS Jon Heyman
moores hoped to have $ from pads sale now. but owners want more info on moorad. a few arent fans (i.e. reinsdorf, kendrick)

not surprising on Kendrick at all

its no secret in the league that Kendrick hates Moorad and how things went with him leaving AZ to SD and the way the deal was made.

you're right

Good point

Darren just said

the vote to extend Bud’s contract was 29-1 with the only no vote being Moores…dayum

SanDiegan247 - January 12, 2012 reply

Good for him

They didn’t want him gone yet then good on him causing trouble. Good news is the approval seems certain if just delayed until March.

athletics68 - January 12, 2012 reply

i guess the certain part depends

on how you read it. Moorad is spinning that its technical issues, Selig states there are economic concerns. The Sullivan article that Hormel linked to below does indicate it will still likely be approved, but it was also thought to be likely approved today, so you never know.

I hope this rumor is true

two reasons 1. it’s awesome to stick it to bud for delaying the ownership transfer. 2. Bud Selig sucks and it would be awesome to be fans of a team that acknowledges it.

kevintheoman - January 12, 2012 reply

good

article

Since they are on hold

Will they allow The Padres to conduct business and complete the television deal, or is that frozen until everything is resolved.

That's what I was wondering

I would imagine we might have an idea tomorrow, since that was when the TV Deal was supposed to have been announced.

NO PADRES BASEBALL in 2012

season cancelled…we can all go back to complaining about the Chargers

MLB owners delay approval of Padres sale

padres.com article says that it won't be hindered by the ownership delay

kevintheoman - January 12, 2012 reply

This is all so wierd.

Best case scenario: we get rid of Creepy Beardo and Moores sells to 1 person rather a consortium of hard-up millionaires.

Its obvious the other owners thought Moorad and co had gotten a loan of some sort which they could pay back with money they slowly suck out tv contracts and revenue sharing for the next few years. It would suck to have people who cannot afford it own the team for so many reasons.

Its not an unattainable dream to get some rich guy to run the team while putting some money in in the right situations as he knows his asset will appreciate. You don’t buy a team to run like a normal profit making business, as apparently the other owners aren’t cool with that anymore.

lasers pew pew pew! - January 12, 2012 reply

Given that Moorad and his group are already 49% invested

not counting their attempts here, what I see most likely is that He still stays in, and has to add to his group.

While its not an unattainable dream, it still is, most likely , a dream. Consider that many franchises now are owned by multiple people or a corporation or investment group, particularly newly purchased franchises, to dream of the philanthropic owner at this point, really is a dream.

lasers pew pew pew! - January 12, 2012 reply

Ok not ab owner who doesn't care how much he spends.

How about an owner (rather like Moores) who will answer a cash call when the team need it. Moorad wont even give out incentive laden contracts in case something goes RIGHT and a player actually performs. He can’t afford this team unless he sticks to this absurd business model where they are the cheapest team in the league.
The asset appreciates. Its a closed loop, there are 30 teams, its always going to rise in value, therefore you should be able to put money in. Also you get to OWN the San Diego Padres, I’d quite like that…

when your payroll is <50m

it makes sense to have some degree of cost certainty. I don’t think moorad is going to forego incentive based dead forever and without exception but I see his reasoning

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

From the article on The Padres page

This is the second time in the past three owners’ meetings that the sale of an MLB club has been pulled from the agenda prior to it moving forward for approval. In August at Cooperstown, N.Y., Jim Crane’s proposed purchase of the Astros from Drayton McLane was tabled so that MLB could gather more information about the group Crane assembled to execute the deal. It was placed back on the agenda and passed unanimously in November in Milwaukee after Crane agreed to move the Astros from the National League Central to the American League West effective with the 2013 season.

Selig said he envisioned the Moorad purchase to be quickly concluded and approval could be accomplished via conference call rather than have it wait for the next owners’ meetings in May in New York.

Oh god, they're going to make us move to the Arena League?!

oh god

he must want a dh

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

oh god

he’s holding out until the Padres get In-N-Out Burgers at Petco

"oh God"

just bud selig talking to hinself

iheartyourfart - January 12, 2012 via Android app reply

oH gOd

Bud Selig is a ho fo’ sho’

Maybe Moorad shouldn't of brought the guacamole to the meeting.

Shouldn't of where? Nottingham?

/day made

There is too much hate in this thread directed towards each other, when we should really be hating one person:

Jerry fcuking Reinsdorf and the D-Bag organization.

My balls, Jerry. You may suck them. Long and hard. You piece of $hit.

Guess what, D-Bags? I rubbed my taint on your coffee mugs. That’s what gives your morning cup of joe that “earthy aroma.”

Your sentiment

makesme not want to point out that that is actually 2 people to be directing hate too! So I wont point that out. I am in complete agreement with you Chicken.

LOL, I originally targeted it at just Reinsdorf, but then remembered the D-Bags. I edited the message, but not the title. x_x

But, yes, thank you. And I’m glad I made your day. :-)