It figures that one of the biggest pieces of franchise news hits at the exact moment I get into my car for a day and a half long business trip (I was in Tysons yesterday meeting with a client, then playing some pickleball at the new club off of Tyco road). So, apologies for being a little late to this.
Amazingly, in a news announcement that came out of complete left field, The Washington & Baltimore franchises have agreed to part ways after the 2025 season and end their MASN marriage.
Some salient details from the various announcements I’ve seen and some commentary:
- The teams have ripped up their 2022-2026 agreement, which was (of course) in dispute anyway, and have agreed on a one year 2025 MASN deal worth an undisclosed amount, but if they honor the terms of the agreement for 2024 it should be around $58.3M.
- There’s been so many hearings and appeals and what not that it’s not entirely clear what the Baltimore Franchise actually still owes the Nats: They only settled the 2012-2016 amount ($296M) in June of 2023. The implication is that the teams are still thus fighting about the amounts due for 2017-2021 and 2022-26, each of which is separately about a $300M payment.
- It’s important to know just how combative and argumentative Baltimore has been throughout this entire process. They were never supposed to go to court to dispute the agreement; they sued anyway. Then they whined about the law firm MLB used. Then they whined about the team reps involved. Then, after the law firm was replaced and three new team reps were included … the group came to the same conclusion, and Baltimore appealed again, refusing to pay. It took another four years before the team finally, begrudingly was forced to pay.
- While I find it tough to be sympathetic to multi-billionaire owners who clearly are not losing money on this team (why could they afford a $200M payroll 4 years ago but a third of that now?), the fact that they’ve had to fight over these figures for a decade is patently ridiculous, and MLB should have stepped in LONG, LONG ago.
- Selig should have forced this to completion more than a decade ago, but i think he was afraid of Angelos and his tendency to sue. He was right.
- I honestly thought MLB would force the divesture of this MASN partnership when the Baltimore team sold … and honestly i’m shocked this popped up now. What’s changed?
- This was a ridiculously one-sided deal from the get go, and never should have been agreed to. MLB certainly has learned its lesson with these bullsh*t territorial rights agreements, and with promised expansion coming I’ll bet you a dollar they’re already working on freeing areas like Charlotte (from Atlanta) and Portland (from Seattle) to avoid this nonsense in the future.
- Even in 2005, when this deal was struck, Anyone with a brain and a car KNEW there was not a real territorial control from Baltimore over the DC suburbs. Imagine today if I told you that you needed to be in Baltimore for a 7:05pm start time on a Tuesday, and you lived in, i dunno, Centreville. What time would you leave to avoid traffic to get to Baltimore on time? Noon? I mean seriously. If you left Centreville at 4pm, headed east on 66, around the beltway, then up 95 … you wouldn’t get there in three hours. You’d be better served taking a flight out of IAD to BWI and renting a car. So, Baltimore had no real fan base coming from huge swaths of the DC area for its games, and became a weekend touristy visit. Nobody’s buying season tickets to that team who lives in Virginia. So, I struggled with this from the get go.
- The cancellation of this deal now has basically robbed the Nationals of the golden years of RSN money. Again, hard to be completely sympathetic to the billionaire Lerners, but for years they’ve gotten nothing but legal bills while comparable markets got massive amounts of money to help run their franchise. The DC area is ranked amongst the top 10 markets in the US for all major factors (6th in MSA, 6th in DMA) and generally compares with the following markets from a size/wealth perspective: Philly, Dallas, and Houston. You want to know what those three teams get from their RSN deals? Philly=$125M. Texas Rangers = $110M. Houston = $73-$80M). DC has had to fight just to get around $60M a year. That’s real money, and has real impacts on a team.
- Now, of course, we’re seeing the collapse of RSNs, with half the teams around the league basically without a deal at all. I have to suspect this is what’s leading to the collapse of this deal altogether; Baltimore probably is looking at its RSN revenues and going white with shock, since its driven by a sh*tty Baltimore market and the complete underutilization of the Washington market (have you seen the MASN production values for Nats games? Its like Wayne’s World-quality sets and production value). And, of course, we’re in a new wave of streaming and cord cutting and the overall decline of conventional viewing patterns. Something likely gave, and even at a $50M clip the Baltimore owners probably balked and chose to walk away rather than continue to fight.
- Remind me again … how the hell is Baltimore considered a “small market team” and given comp draft picks year after year … when we are legally obligated to get the exact same amount of TV revenue as they are, yet DC is considered a major market??
- WP’s Barry Svrluga posted a scathing article basically calling out Lerner for the loss of “cover” for this deal going south, and he’s not wrong. This franchise no longer has any ‘excuses’ for not spending. Frankly, the last couple of years have been ridiculous, and they should have been more active to supplement the team. He also notes the patently ridiculous point that this team has yet to sell naming rights for the stadium (worth $20M a year usually) or jersey patches (worth $15M/year for some teams). Why?? We’re the ONLY DAMN TEAM in the league without either deal right now. Can you spell incompetent?
- This handcuff of a deal had to be a massive displeaser for potential buyers of this franchise, so bravo to Lerner’s for getting out of it. I’ll bet this increased their franchise value by hundreds of millions of dollars overnight.
- Speaking of selling, One has to think that this breakup was toasted with champagne by Ted Leonsis and his Monument network. I’ll bet Leonsis’ first call was to Lerner to basically say …. “so, you still interested in selling??” If the Lerner’s want out (and one has to think they do), then Leonsis is the way to go. He’ll immediately add to his two other pro franchises, immediately take the broadcasting in-house and get the “inventory” of an entire season of games for his network, and be able to do bundled/combo packages of Nats/Caps/Wizards players all cross-promoting. I mean, it makes too much sense not to happen right? Oh, and it’ll take Leonsis about 15 minutes to finally put a professional broadcasting studio together to do proper pre-game/post-game for the Nats, something that they’ve … never had.
Anyway, so that’s some stream of consciousness for today. Bravo for this happening, sorry it didn’t happen a decade ago when it should have, and no more excuses not to spend money.
Over the long haul, I’ve been a defender of the Lerners. They have had some peculiar, idiosyncratic tendencies that other (good) owners do not, but from roughly 2010-2021 they committed substantial resources and ran a payroll commensurate with the DC market and the team’s place in the standings.
But, as I sit here in 2025, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the key member of the “Lerners” who committed to a high payroll was Ted Lerner, who is no longer with us. We have literally zero evidence that the remaining Lerners are prepared to spend what’s necessary to compete in the NL East and, at this point, a substantial amount of evidence that they are NOT so prepared. Obviously, I like spending other peoples’ money, and I would have spent more Lerner money in the ’21, ’22, and ’23 offseasons than they did. At the same time, the case for big outlays was weak during those offseasons. I don’t feel the same way about ’24–it was time to spend some real money and the Nats went bargain-hunting again (though I commend what Rizzo was able to do).
I think the ’24 offseason is a sign of things to come if the current set of Lerners remains in charge. I hope this development leads to a sale.
Derek
4 Mar 25 at 5:06 pm
“If the Lerner’s want out (and one has to think they do)”
Well, Mark Lerner did say a year ago that “the team is not for sale.” Two weeks ago he said that his family is “in it for the long haul.”
So in order to think that the Lerners want out, one has to simply assume that Mark Lerner is lying about it. Which you can, of course. But, and hear me out here: what if he isn’t? The scuttlebutt is that Mark and one of his siblings wants to stay in and one sister wants out. Maybe that’s true, maybe that isn’t. But it’s on the table that at least Mark and possibly a sibling want to stay in it. We’ll know more once Ted’s estate gets through probate.
(TL;DR: no one doesn’t have to think that the Lerners want out because there are reasons to believe that they don’t)
The “the Nats only spent because of Ted” runs into a timeline problem. Ted stepped back and handed over the reins to Mark in 2018, and the team continued to run high payrolls for the next four years (4th, 4th, 6th, and 7th in MLB payrolls according to B-R). Aha! I hear you say – but Ted was still alive! Yes, and while he was still alive the team slipped to 16th in payroll in 2022 and then 23rd in 2023 (the year that Ted Lerner died). So to thread the timeline needle one has to take the position that Ted ran the show from the owner emeritus box … but didn’t run the show when the payroll started downhill.
I am disappointed with the Nats’ offseason, but if one ticks through the various impact free agents there are real reasons why each went elsewhere. The Nats weren’t going to stack money higher than Cohen and Steinbrenner to get Soto. Burnes took less money to go to Arizona for family reasons. While I wanted the Nats to sign Bregman, I would NOT want the Nats to sign him to the deal that he got from Boston. An opt out after one season? That makes no sense for the Nats. Which is why it would have been nuts to sign Alonso. Etc., etc..
(and FWIW in his chat to today on the WaPO Svrluga admitted that he took the “Lerners have no cover” angle in his column in large part because he’s trying to pressure the team)
Will the team
John C.
5 Mar 25 at 12:20 am
@JohnC: I’m not sure I believe what the Lerners say, no. Why? They tried to sell and couldn’t … likely b/c they had this ridiculously bad RSN deal. When they realized the deal was going to greatly impact the franchise value for a sale, they “said the right things” and took it off the market. So you’re now telling me they’ve had a change of heart after publicly putting it on the market just a few months later? Bullsh*t.
I think they tried to sell, couldn’t get $2B or whatever they asked for it b/c of TV deal, and decided to wait it out. Well, that TV deal thing is now unblocked and now they can get out. I don’t think this family wants any part of a MLB team, and I’ll also bet that they’re getting pressure as a high-payroll franchise to spend.
I don’t think i’ve ever tried to make the argument that the Lerner’s only spent b/c of Ted … I mean, they had a top 5 payroll at one point. Honestly, I think the Lerner’s are running back the exact same playbook they ran when they first bought the team:
– Bottom out the payroll and finish dead last (2008-09, and again in 2021-22)
– Get a bunch of high draft picks as a result (Harper/Strasburg/Rendon/Giolito then, now in the midst of House/Green/Crews/and whoever we get this year)
– incrementally improve up to about 70 wins (2010 and again in 2023/24)
Next steps:
– incrementally improve up to around 81 wins (2011 and hopefully in 2025).
– Wait for top prospects to arrive (Strasburg 2010, Harper 2011 then, Crews/House/Wood now)
– Buy some talent on the FA market (Werth, LaRoche, Ankiel/Hairston for 2011 season, tbd after next season)
– Maybe make a big trade from surplus prospects (Gio Gonzalez for 2012 season, tbd maybe after next season)
– Make the leap from 81 wins to 90-something wins (2012 then, tbd now).
so … we’re midway through the same playbook Lerner and Rizzo did between 2008-12. Just have to get there.
Todd Boss
5 Mar 25 at 8:54 am
Todd, unfortunately for the Lerners (and of their making, since they made the rules) the rules have changed since the late aughts. The rebuild model that gained us so much success is literally impossible today. Among other things, we couldn’t pick Strasburg and Harper back-to-back 1-1 today, which would basically entirely upend the foundations of that rebuild.
With stricter controls on IFA signings, a draft lottery, anti-tanking penalties, and just generally lucking into absurd 1st round talent in Strasburg, Harper and Rendon in successive seasons, that model won’t work for the Nats today.
The only way to get us out of this increasingly perpetual rebuild cycle of developing elite talent then trading them once they become good to kickstart the next rebuild, is by spending money.
The tried and tested excuses to not spend money are fortunately and harder to justify now. So let’s see what Mark Lerner (speaking of which, what happened to commenter Mark L?) does in the next year. His best move in the short term would be to lock down the best talent in the team (or soon to be) to long term contracts, so that we don’t lose them as soon as the next wave of prospects, like Sykora, Susana, Dickerson and King, arrive on the scene and begin producing.
But we’re going to need to supplement the talent we have with external help. Not signing anyone of note this winter means we’ll just have to spend more next winter.
Will
5 Mar 25 at 10:06 am
JohnC–I think your timeline misses the point a little bit. I never said a Ted Lerner-led team was incapable of running low payrolls. The idea that the payroll started declining while Ted was still alive is irrelevant to the more important point–whether we can trust the Mark-led Lerner family to sign free agents to cost money.
The fact remains that ALL the 7-figure deals signed by this franchise were signed when Ted was in charge. Do you honestly think Mark Lerner was the decisionmaker on the Strasburg deal in the ’19 offseason? Yes, the team ran high payrolls after Ted (supposedly) put Mark in control, but the reason those payrolls were high was because of the deals signed earlier under Ted’s watch. What is the biggest FA contract signed by the team under Mark? Kyle Schwarber? The biggest overall deal is the whopping $50M deal to Keibert Ruiz.
I am skeptical that Mark Lerner is capable of winning a bidding war for a top-tier free agent. I would love to be wrong, but we have–quite literally–zero evidence that he can, and some decent amount of evidence that he cannot or will not. And I think it’s necessary to be able to win such a bidding war if the Nationals are going to compete for NL East titles. I think Ted Leonsis, for all his faults, gives us a much better shot at sustained contention that the Lerner family as currently constructed.
Derek
5 Mar 25 at 10:50 am
FYI i know mlbpipeline released their top 30 … wanted to continue the MASN discussion for anther day before publishing….
Todd Boss
5 Mar 25 at 1:27 pm
I’m no shill for the Lerners. I’m not a fan of billionaires under any circumstances. But I’ve never understood the fascination with Leonsis. He is willing to accept money from any corner, no matter how sketchy. Even if one has no qualms about that, his record as a franchise owner is not great. He lucked into a legendary player and in 20 years the hockey team has won one Stanley Cup while enduring many embarrassing first round playoff exits. And no one seems to notice that he also owns the Wizards, who have been awful for his entire ownership run and now once again hold the worst record in the NBA by a decent margin. Blech.
Todd, I disagree that your take is the only possible explanation of the Lerners’ situation viz a potential sale and leave it at that.
For me, the best result for now would be to have the Nats move to Monumental Sports for broadcasting but with the Lerners holding onto the team. Leonsis could become a minority owner of the Nats (Mark Lerner is already a minority partner in Monumental), perhaps with some sort of right of refusal whenever the Lerners do sell (nothing is forever).
John C.
5 Mar 25 at 6:39 pm
Agreed on Leonsis. He’s far from a “sure thing”, and he doesn’t have the means, like Guggenheim with the Dodgers or Cohen with the Mets, to spend his own wealth to fund the team. He’s fortunate that the salary caps in the NHL and NBA make being an owner much, much easier than in MLB.
And then on that front he has two polar opposite track records with his two teams. Except maybe Charlotte, the Wizards have been the worst NBA team in the league this century, and they will continue to be for many years to come. I hold Leonsis personally responsible for this, as he made some genuinely dreadful personnel decisions, like hiring then inexplicably retaining Ernie Grunfeld for years.
But it’s hard to reconcile with the Capitals, who’ve been one of the best teams in the NHL for the past 20 years. Yes, Ovechkin is a huge part of it. But it’s not so simple as getting a once-in-a-generation talent. The Nats had 3 generational talents, and opted to retain the worst of the 3. Also, simply getting one of these players doesn’t guarantee success (in terms of Championships or playoff apeparances). The Oilers have wasted some of the best years of McDavid.
So if I fault him for his mismanagement of the Wizards, it’s only fair to credit him for what he’s done with the Capitals. But it’s really hard to see if that will translate to the Nats. As I mentioned before, ownership in the MLB is a different beast to the other sports, and I don’t think Leonsis is a natural fit, and I don’t appreciate his attempts to take sports out of DC.
Honestly, I think we missed the best candidate: David Rubenstein. Extremely wealthy, a huge patron of DC, and compared to most billionaires, relatively less icky. And most of all, seemingly a reasonable human being, as he’S clearly a big reason why we were able to finally resolve this MASN mess. Too bad Baltimore got him.
Will
6 Mar 25 at 3:36 am
I find it a little hard to criticize Leonsis for an NBA team failing, since having a singular star is so vital to an NBA team’s success and its so completely random sometimes to find said stars.
Here’s last year’s 1st team all NBA and how they were acquired:
– Giannis: a 15th overall pick, so 14 teams missed on him
– Luca: 3rd overall … but a draft day trade for a mid-level player that crushed Atlanta for years.
– SGA: 11th overall pick, so 10 teams missed on him
– Jokic: 2nd round, 41st overall
– Tatum: 1st round, 3rd overall by Boston, kept by Boston; the only example of a team doing the right thing with the right player.
The Wizards could have had two of these guys, as could have many other teams.
Todd Boss
6 Mar 25 at 11:03 am
I choked a little bit on the Caps being one of the best teams in the NHL for 20 years. Which is appropriate given the Caps’ tradition of making the playoffs most years (much easier in the NHL than MLB even with the extra WC team) and getting wiped out in the first round by a lower seed. I have a lot of friends who are Caps fans/ticket holders and are not enamored of the Leonsis experience.
The Nats didn’t “opt” to let Harper and Soto go. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. IT WASN’T UP TO THE NATS. The player has agency. That’s why it’s called “free agency.” Harper wanted >$400M. When asked early in 2018 if $400M would get him to sign, his response was “don’t sell me short.” He waited around until mid-March, then settled for the best deal he could get. And before you say “the Nats should have signed Harper to that deal,” think. That deal was never available to the Nats. Boras was hanging around hoping for a bidding war that never happened. If the Nats had jumped back in, Boras gets his bidding war and the price shoots up. Soto was going to free agency. The f’n Yankees went all in on Soto and couldn’t keep up with Cohen. So it makes zero sense to get mad at the Nats. Trading Soto for a king’s ransom was ultimately one of Rizzo’s best moves. I would have flinched from it, but he didn’t. The reason that Stras stayed is that he wanted to; he overruled Boras to get his extension. And that extension worked out GREAT for the Nats. It was the second extension that cratered.
John C.
6 Mar 25 at 11:18 am
According to Forbes and Wikipedia there are 9 teams without stadium naming rights
Rdexposfan
7 Mar 25 at 1:10 pm
@Rdexposfan True! But the Nats are the only team that has neither stadium naming rights nor a jersey patch.
John C.
7 Mar 25 at 9:11 pm
@Rdexposfan: yes sorry i wasn’t clear: JohnC stated what I intended to say accurately.
Point is simple: It’s hard to listen to a multi-billionaire owner making excuses for not keeping his team’s payroll near the top of the league when he’s purposely leaving tens of millions of dollars of revenue unclaimed simply because they havn’t made a deal.
Todd Boss
8 Mar 25 at 11:55 am