Speaker 1: It's nothing personal. It's David Sampson joining us right now. David,
Speaker 1: great to see you again. You can check out his show,
Speaker 1: great logo behind him. I listen to it almost every day,
Speaker 1: especially on the business front, sports biz, legal news, the
Speaker 1: whole deal. So very timely to have you on today, David.
Speaker 1: How you doing and your thoughts on the weekend explosion
Speaker 1: of details related to Emmanuel Class and Luis Ortiz, who
Speaker 1: likely will never be in Major League baseball again.
Speaker 2: Oh, good morning. I think it's more than likely. I
Speaker 2: think it's a guarantee they will never throw another pitch.
Speaker 2: I think that Baseball is doing what they always do,
Speaker 2: which is they're going to continue their investigation, but they're
Speaker 2: going to wait and wait and wait to see what
Speaker 2: happens with this indictment. And the lawyers for the two
Speaker 2: players did not waste any time in ridiculous statements decrying
Speaker 2: their innocence and that they love the game of baseball
Speaker 2: and would never do anything to harm it. And my
Speaker 2: view is that the reason I think they're finished when
Speaker 2: the Feds when they put down an indictment. The way
Speaker 2: it works is the US District, the Southern District, the
Speaker 2: Eastern District, let's just say the prosecutors they don't like
Speaker 2: indictments for cases they can't win, and so when they
Speaker 2: allow for an indictment, it's because they've got stuff, and
Speaker 2: whether it's the smoking gun or not, they have enough
Speaker 2: to show beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of
Speaker 2: those men's peers that they did this. And so it's
Speaker 2: not that they are guilty until proven innocent. They are
Speaker 2: innocent until proven guilty. But all of these prosecutors keep
Speaker 2: a scorecard, I promise you that, and they don't like losing.
Speaker 3: So it is my understanding.
Speaker 2: We'll see how it plays out, but as far as
Speaker 2: their baseball careers finished, and it really is too bad.
Speaker 4: Hey, I've seen billions. Okay, David, I've seen billions, so
Speaker 4: I know how what's the name Paul gma Volvolo? He
Speaker 4: handles the prosecutor the body. Yes, okay, they don't miss.
Speaker 4: If if this gets public and they're arresting people, they
Speaker 4: don't miss usually. So my question is is can they
Speaker 4: plete this down? I know they're saying they're innocent, and
Speaker 4: we're assuming they're innocent because you're innocent, do proven guilty,
Speaker 4: but is there a way to plete this down? If
Speaker 4: they have all this innocent, all this evidence against you
Speaker 4: saying hey, you threw this bitch, and you threw this bitch,
Speaker 4: and we have texts and we have calls, or do
Speaker 4: they just say, you know what, We're gonna fight this
Speaker 4: till the end.
Speaker 2: Oh No, they'd much rather not have to go to
Speaker 2: trial because it's a win when you if they're gonna plea,
Speaker 2: you generally plead guilty, and it's a deal. You get
Speaker 2: a deal, whether it's whatever time, if it's gonna be probation,
Speaker 2: if it's going to be a year, if it's gonna
Speaker 2: be six months.
Speaker 3: There was someone who wrote.
Speaker 2: That it's possible to get sixty five years, because it's
Speaker 2: true with all the counts. What you do is you
Speaker 2: add up the maximum prison time for each count, and
Speaker 2: they add up to sixty five years.
Speaker 3: Well, i'll give it to you here, so you have
Speaker 3: the scoop.
Speaker 2: It's a guarantee they will not be in prison for
Speaker 2: sixty five years each. There will be some sort of
Speaker 2: even if they are convicted, when they're sentenced, it still
Speaker 2: won't be sixty five years.
Speaker 3: But you're right.
Speaker 2: What the lawyers do is they meet with the prosecutors
Speaker 2: and they talk about what kind of deal can be done,
Speaker 2: because really there's incentive for both sides. It's very costly
Speaker 2: for Class A and or ties to defend themselves in court,
Speaker 2: and it's also costly for the people in terms of
Speaker 2: time that it takes to go all the way up
Speaker 2: through trial up to sentencing. So every case, actually both
Speaker 2: sides generally are looking to do a deal.
Speaker 5: Players past and present players are their visceral hate for
Speaker 5: gambling in the game because the integrity that we lose,
Speaker 5: integrity of the game. Do we need to change I'm
Speaker 5: sure you remember the you know the rule, whether it
Speaker 5: rule sixty one or whatever, it's read twenty one, twenty one,
Speaker 5: thank you, it's red. In spring training, everybody reads it.
Speaker 5: AJ and I always talk about this. Oh, we heard
Speaker 5: it all the time, and it was something that kind
Speaker 5: of just went through the motions. Does Major League Baseball
Speaker 5: need to up their responsibility in making sure the players
Speaker 5: understand this or is this just a one off? And
Speaker 5: then the one last year with some minor leaguers was
Speaker 5: a one off? Like do they need to do a
Speaker 5: better job?
Speaker 2: I think your point is a very interesting one. And
Speaker 2: what I would say is when rule twenty one is
Speaker 2: read to you. Here's what happens. Glazed dies doesn't apply
Speaker 2: to me, don't care about it. And then we have
Speaker 2: to read it in Spanish, no less, and then it's
Speaker 2: really glazed eyes for the players who don't speak Spanish.
Speaker 2: We all know right from wrong inside that clubhouse. The
Speaker 2: rule is we have to read it because we want
Speaker 2: the players never to say, oh, I didn't know that.
Speaker 2: I couldn't do that to me. The fact that gambling
Speaker 2: is legalized now and there are apps, and there are
Speaker 2: partnerships that have accrued to the benefit of players because
Speaker 2: teams have more money and salaries are going up, et cetera.
Speaker 2: There is no excuse that your head is in the sand,
Speaker 2: you know, oh, when you're doing something wrong. Class A
Speaker 2: cannot say, oh, it's one pitch. I still love baseball.
Speaker 2: I still want to win. What's the difference between a
Speaker 2: ball and a strike. I'm just helping someone get a
Speaker 2: couple grand The integrity the game happens when Class A
Speaker 2: then loses money or someone pressures him into saying, it's
Speaker 2: not a pitch I'm interested in. It's the total. It's
Speaker 2: not the total, it's the game score. It's who wins,
Speaker 2: who loses. That's when you get into third rail integrity
Speaker 2: type stuff. And so the hope is that players and
Speaker 2: everyone involved in sports realizes that as a deterrent. When
Speaker 2: you are punished for life, that ought to be enough
Speaker 2: to tell you to stop doing this. But people continue
Speaker 2: to be stupid, and so I don't know how that changes.
Speaker 2: But I promise you guys, they're not going to take
Speaker 2: away gambling. They're not going to make it illegal. The
Speaker 2: apps aren't going to go away. That partnerships aren't going
Speaker 2: to go away. There's too much money at stake.
Speaker 1: Kratz pop quiz. What has three grams of protein, six
Speaker 1: grams of fiber, twenty seven essential vitamins and minerals. Comes
Speaker 1: in excellent flavors like of course chocolate, vanilla, but chocolate,
Speaker 1: peanut butter, my favorite, no added sugar, gluten free, under
Speaker 1: five dollars per meal, and is ready to drink.
Speaker 5: Go out of the house, get yourself a shuel Look
Speaker 5: at you. You even have one right there, ready to
Speaker 5: smack that John h Chocolate, peanut butter, chocolate and vanilla deliciosas.
Speaker 1: Also, there is a new Daily Greens ready to drink
Speaker 1: forty two vitamins minerals and superfoods only twenty five calories
Speaker 1: on that one four grams of fiber. There's flavors like blueberry, apple, peach.
Speaker 1: Huel makes healthy eating simple. They also just launched into
Speaker 1: Target stores nationwide. Try both products today with fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your purchase for new customers with the codefoul at
Speaker 1: huel dot com slash foul. Use that code foul and
Speaker 1: fill out the post checkout survey to help support FT.
Speaker 4: All right, I gotta go here. I'm sorry, but I
Speaker 4: watched the Expos documentary. Okay, I'm just gonna go here. David, listen.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying you killed the Expos, but I was
Speaker 4: on the Twins at the same time, okay, and every
Speaker 4: week I had to have go on a phone call about, oh,
Speaker 4: contraction and the Expos. Did you know at the time
Speaker 4: that you had a backdoor deal to get the Marlins,
Speaker 4: because I was on a phone call every week saying, oh, man,
Speaker 4: the Expos and the Twins are gonna get contracted. Da
Speaker 4: da da da da. The owners don't really I don't
Speaker 4: know if they don't want the team, but they were
Speaker 4: just like, oh, you know, it's a better deal for
Speaker 4: MLB if we lose two teams. So can you talk
Speaker 4: about why I wasn't that talked about in the documentary
Speaker 4: because contraction was a real thing and I was on
Speaker 4: one of the teams that had to listen to that
Speaker 4: bull crap every week.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, the final vote was twenty eight to
Speaker 2: two in favor of contraction, and the two teams get
Speaker 2: voted against it were your Twins and my expos.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: No, no, I mean.
Speaker 2: Back then, the owner of your team was the richest
Speaker 2: owner in all of baseball, Carl Polos. And still there
Speaker 2: was no direct correlation to payroll because the team was
Speaker 2: losing money, etc. But back then, my interest was in
Speaker 2: protecting our space in the game. When I found out
Speaker 2: the contraction and I thought it was real that they
Speaker 2: wanted to go to twenty eight teams until I discovered
Speaker 2: hold on. It's being used as leverage in a collective
Speaker 2: bargaining negotiation. The players need to be told that, hey,
Speaker 2: you could lose fifty jobs here. It's really more than
Speaker 2: fifty because of minor league systems, etc. But just start
Speaker 2: at fifty. There's fifty jobs at stake. How do you
Speaker 2: feel about that. We need to change the economics of
Speaker 2: Baseball right now.
Speaker 3: But after that vote was.
Speaker 2: Taken, I stood up in an owner's meeting and I
Speaker 2: read a statement saying, hey, no contraction.
Speaker 3: We do not want to be.
Speaker 2: Contracted, even though the vote said that contraction was going
Speaker 2: to happen. And then at the time you may not
Speaker 2: remember this, it wasn't the Red Sox. It was the
Speaker 2: California Angels who were being sold. That was the third
Speaker 2: team in the franchise swap. John Henry was going to
Speaker 2: sell the Marlins to Jeffrey Lauria and buy the Angels
Speaker 2: from the gene Autry family Trust. But he couldn't get
Speaker 2: a deal done for the Angels, so he pivoted to
Speaker 2: the Red Sox, who were for sale. Because it was
Speaker 2: the Yackey Trust selling, and it was a whole auction
Speaker 2: for the Red Sox, but it was fixed so that
Speaker 2: John Henry would win that auction, get the Red Sox,
Speaker 2: we'd get the Marlins, and Baseball would get the Expos
Speaker 2: but not contract him, just move them to Washington three
Speaker 2: years later. That's how that deal went down and why
Speaker 2: they didn't cover in the documentary. I wasn't the director
Speaker 2: of the producer. I was simply interviewed for it, but
Speaker 2: there's a whole movie inside that franchise swap.
Speaker 1: David, I've followed you for a long time. I will
Speaker 1: say on the doc, my favorite line was when you
Speaker 1: talked about the minority owners in the Expos and how
Speaker 1: they couldn't find money anywhere to help with the team,
Speaker 1: yet they had lots of money for lawyers, lots of
Speaker 1: money for lawyer lawyers. For me, that was eye opening
Speaker 1: for real because I'm trying to really lunch site.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 1: That was a time for me when I was young,
Speaker 1: and I was like, yeah, that is funny. They paid
Speaker 1: millions of dollars for lawyers that they couldn't help their
Speaker 1: own city and their franchise.
Speaker 6: So thank you for that line. That definitely helped a lot.
Speaker 2: Let me just remind the audience that when the Expos
Speaker 2: were sold, the price was eighteen million Canadian dollars and
Speaker 2: that sounds like a lot of money to ninety nine
Speaker 2: point nine nine percent of the people, and I get it.
Speaker 2: But to the people who were the limited partners of
Speaker 2: the Expos, their wealth and their prominence and their view
Speaker 2: of Montreal, I never would have been in the game.
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Lourian never would have been in the game because
Speaker 2: the goal was to sell to a Canadian anybody who
Speaker 2: could fog up a mirror, and there were a lot
Speaker 2: of people who could, and all they had to come
Speaker 2: up with was eighteen million, and it was crickets.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about nobody.
Speaker 2: That's how Jeffrey Laurie got the Expos because it was
Speaker 2: the final, Final, Final. Nobody else wanted them. Side notes.
Speaker 2: No one wanted the Martlins either. John Henry wanted out,
Speaker 2: and we said, well, what do you got and Larry
Speaker 2: Lakeino was sent to Florida buy Bud Sealid and Larry
Speaker 2: Lekeno said, Hey, the Marlins can't make it in Miami.
Speaker 2: No one can get a stadium done. Haizinga tried, Henry tried,
Speaker 2: and so they came up to us and said, hey,
Speaker 2: do you want to upgrade from the Expos to the Marlins,
Speaker 2: But it's not really an upgrade, and we said, well,
Speaker 2: we'll try it, and the rest is history.
Speaker 4: The next thing, you know, David, you guys could have
Speaker 4: owned the Yankees if you guys would have just kept
Speaker 4: going down the line, down the line rightly. You guys
Speaker 4: could have been Yankees or Dodgers owners. If you just
Speaker 4: you guys gave up too quick. You put that statue
Speaker 4: out there in left field, which I liked, and then
Speaker 4: you guys gave up. But what I want to know
Speaker 4: is cam Baseball work in Montreal? Because you know, you
Speaker 4: watch this documentary. Everyone says, oh, we love the Expos.
Speaker 4: There's this span Basis says, we love the Expos. But
Speaker 4: can it work if they get a new stadium because expansion?
Speaker 4: Rob Manford wants expansion, But is Montreal a viable alternative,
Speaker 4: because I don't think that it is. After watching the
Speaker 4: documentary and hearing the stories you've told, I don't know
Speaker 4: that it's a viable option.
Speaker 2: So first, you need a deep pocketed Quebuqua. You need
Speaker 2: someone a French Canadian or anyone who lives in Montreal
Speaker 2: to want to be the general partner, want to be
Speaker 2: the owner of the team. Then you need a publicly
Speaker 2: financed ballpark. And the reason you need that is Major
Speaker 2: League Baseball wants to charge a really high expansion fee
Speaker 2: to any ownership group who gets a team, And from
Speaker 2: an ownership group standpoint, they don't care where the money goes.
Speaker 2: If they're going to spend two billion dollars to get
Speaker 2: a franchise. If one point six billion goes to Major
Speaker 2: League Baseball and four hundred million goes to the stadium,
Speaker 2: to them, it's still two billion dollars. But from baseball standpoint,
Speaker 2: they want all two billion going into Baseball. And so
Speaker 2: all of these expansion cities and they're going to keep
Speaker 2: them all live until they're going to have a negotiation
Speaker 2: against each other. It's going to be a bake off
Speaker 2: one city against another. So you're never going to hear
Speaker 2: Rob Manford say, oh, that city's been eliminated. No one's
Speaker 2: going to get eliminated until a deal is done and
Speaker 2: it's in the best interest of the owners to have
Speaker 2: a fully funded stadium. Cad Montreal do that. To me,
Speaker 2: it just seems unlikely because the government has never been
Speaker 2: willing to do a public private partnership. But that to
Speaker 2: me is the number one requirement. Well one a one
Speaker 2: is to find an owner who's local. Two is to
Speaker 2: have a fully funded ballpark.
Speaker 1: This episode of FT is brought to you by Square.
Speaker 1: Your favorite neighborhood spots run on Square. Give me an
Speaker 1: example in pennsylvaniacrats.
Speaker 5: Right down the street from my house, the tap house.
Speaker 5: Not only is it an awesome place to hang out,
Speaker 5: get your beers, get your drinks, whatever it is. But
Speaker 5: you know what the company has the simplicity of Square
Speaker 5: and they give back to the community with ten percent
Speaker 5: of all the proceeds that they bring in to community projects.
Speaker 6: I love it.
Speaker 1: Sports and sports bars are so good at bringing together
Speaker 1: local communities and you can actually take this ad as
Speaker 1: an excuse to go support your local spot and have
Speaker 1: yourself a day or weekend in the neighborhood. Square is
Speaker 1: a proud partner of more than four million neighborhood businesses
Speaker 1: around the world. These businesses are what make the neighborhood
Speaker 1: the neighborhood. So visit Square dot com, slash go, slash
Speaker 1: foul to learn more. But before you do, go support
Speaker 1: your favorite neighborhood spot. You'll be happy you did. Square
Speaker 1: see you in the neighborhood again. That's Square dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash go, slash foul to learn more. David, next up
Speaker 1: for you, I want to get to Jim Murray, agent
Speaker 1: who had dealings with MLB and a pretty explosive story
Speaker 1: and your thoughts on how I mean he was essentially
Speaker 1: a mole for MLB during their conversations during what was
Speaker 1: like a mini CBA, basically to get baseball back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: I'm assuming you saw the story.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts and the MLBS, I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: people always talk back and forth. That seems like a
Speaker 1: little more than just a friendly conversation.
Speaker 3: Well, he just got caught, is what happened.
Speaker 2: But during the course of negotiations and in between bargaining agreements,
Speaker 2: there's a rule that owners aren't supposed to talk to
Speaker 2: the press, owners aren't supposed to talk to players. We
Speaker 2: were all talking to everyone always because you're trying to help,
Speaker 2: you're trying to get information. I shocked that there was
Speaker 2: a double agent, double entendre pun required and meant no,
Speaker 2: not at all. There's people from both sides using the media.
Speaker 2: There's people from both sides looking for ways through the
Speaker 2: executive Council to speak to players, to get messages out there.
Speaker 2: Scott Forres, is doing stuff all the time, trying to
Speaker 2: make his presence felt, So all of that is very normal.
Speaker 2: I think what the reason why you saw the hammer
Speaker 2: fall so hard on Murray is they're entering into a
Speaker 2: negotiation now and it is critical that Tony Clark and
Speaker 2: Bruce Meyer look like they've got the ship contained because
Speaker 2: there was a coup attempt and they were able to
Speaker 2: withstand it. They're still in charge, but it's a huge
Speaker 2: negotiation that's starting, so they want at least the appearance
Speaker 2: of control. Same thing for the commission and the Commissioner's office.
Speaker 2: You're gonna see owners much quieter now. You're gonna see
Speaker 2: rules put into place, but you're gonna see backchanneling all
Speaker 2: the time when you look at which owners are on
Speaker 2: the negotiating committee and will actually be in the room
Speaker 2: where it happens. They're chosen for a reason, their ability
Speaker 2: to negotiate, their ability to communicate. It is a big
Speaker 2: dance that goes on between management and players every time,
Speaker 2: and I think you guys know that, and that dance
Speaker 2: is starting right now.
Speaker 4: All right, David, I'm gonna show you a video and
Speaker 4: then we're gonna talk. Okay, So we're gonna run a
Speaker 4: video here and then we're gonna have a conversation. So
Speaker 4: we're gonna run this video.
Speaker 2: I figured the union had to strategize how they'd respond,
Speaker 2: and I must tell you I did not think that
Speaker 2: their response would be Bruce Mayer going on foul territory now,
Speaker 2: of course you know that Foul Territory is is a
Speaker 2: show that is funded by the Union, and I love
Speaker 2: Foul Territory. They're my friends, been on it, and I
Speaker 2: want them on my show. But let's be clear, those
Speaker 2: are players, and that is a Union show which is
Speaker 2: totally important and needed, and their point of view is critical,
Speaker 2: and it's a popular show.
Speaker 3: You had me at foul.
Speaker 4: Okay, two things. First of all, but trying to copy
Speaker 4: my beard, but trying to copy my beard with the
Speaker 4: gray in the bottom, Okay, like it, It's cool, I
Speaker 4: get it. But the second thing is we are not
Speaker 4: funded by the Players Association. So I want you to
Speaker 4: understand that we are not funded at all. We are
Speaker 4: in the middle, are we players and do we lean
Speaker 4: towards players one hundred percent? But we are not funded
Speaker 4: at all by the Players Association or have we ever been.
Speaker 4: So I want to make that clear. And I appreciate
Speaker 4: your show on this out. And I also appreciate the
Speaker 4: fact that Bruce Meyer came on here because at least
Speaker 4: he got to talk somewhere, because my biggest beef with
Speaker 4: the Player Association. They never say anything, They never stand
Speaker 4: up for what they need to stand up for it's
Speaker 4: Rob Manford and his media conglomerate of boom boom. We're
Speaker 4: gonna throw all this stuff out there in the player
Speaker 4: associations like, oh, we can't talk about that. We can't
Speaker 4: talk about that. At least Bruce Meyer came on here
Speaker 4: and talked about something.
Speaker 2: So ajay, let me first say that thank you, and
Speaker 2: I'm wrong, so the funding that was a bridge too far.
Speaker 2: I think the better way to have framed it is
Speaker 2: the same way people view Nothing Personal is that, Wow,
Speaker 2: he's carrying the water for the owners and for the commissioner.
Speaker 2: I think if people were looking at our two shows,
Speaker 2: the reason why they're both so important is that between
Speaker 2: us we pretty much cover everything and want our audience,
Speaker 2: and we respect our audience and want them to not
Speaker 2: be led to a conclusion. We want them to be
Speaker 2: led to an education. And I think that you guys
Speaker 2: have done an amazing job of that, and I think
Speaker 2: Nothing Personal does that as well.
Speaker 3: I think, though, when.
Speaker 2: Rob Manford is choosing what he does, just like when
Speaker 2: Bruce Meyer is choosing what he does, those choices are
Speaker 2: purposeful and and I don't blame him for choosing you.
Speaker 2: He should choose you it's smart of him to have
Speaker 2: chosen you, But can I get you to at least
Speaker 2: degree that if you sent out an invite to the
Speaker 2: commissioner to come on the show, or to Tony Clark
Speaker 2: or Bruce Meyer to come on the show, that it's
Speaker 2: more likely that you'll get people from the Players Association.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm just gonna say this, David. We've had Tony
Speaker 4: Clark on, We've had Bruce Meyron. I have gone through
Speaker 4: all the hoops to get Rob Manford on. I have
Speaker 4: jumped through hoop after whop after whop, had zoom calls
Speaker 4: with him, talked to Pack Cortney, talked to his secretary,
Speaker 4: and you know what, they cancel at the last second.
Speaker 4: I've text Rob Manford you don't respond. So the answer
Speaker 4: to your question is yes, we've tried both. We tried
Speaker 4: to have Rob Manford on. He canceled. Last time. It
Speaker 4: was January of last year. I was in New York.
Speaker 4: I was ready to go and I got a text
Speaker 4: from Pac Cortney's saying, you know what, he's too busy. Okay, well,
Speaker 4: then why the hell did I jump through? Who have
Speaker 4: a zoom call? Have this call, this call, this call
Speaker 4: this call to get to a point whereas Tony Clarks
Speaker 4: has been on and Bruce Meyer f I techs Bruce
Speaker 4: Myers right now. You might not come on, but at
Speaker 4: least he'll give me someone that can talk about issues.
Speaker 2: So ag I think it's going to be a little
Speaker 2: different this negotiation. It would not shock me if you
Speaker 2: get someone from the Commissioner's office. A, you have an
Speaker 2: important show, and B you have an important audience. And
Speaker 2: see you're cool, all of you guys. So I think
Speaker 2: that the strategy for the Commissioner's side is going to
Speaker 2: be a little different this time. I think they're going
Speaker 2: to want to get the word out because podcasts have
Speaker 2: become and it wasn't always this way, and we've been going,
Speaker 2: I've been going for six years. It's really changed. Think
Speaker 2: about the way political candidates use podcasts now in a
Speaker 2: way that they never did before. I think the world
Speaker 2: has changed, and I think you have to be willing
Speaker 2: to go on quote unquote both kinds of shows, both sides,
Speaker 2: with players, with management.
Speaker 3: So keep going.
Speaker 2: I think you're going to succeed during this bargaining sort
Speaker 2: of time frame.
Speaker 1: Yeah that's good, then that's true. That's the point is
Speaker 1: like we want people to know neutral. We talked about
Speaker 1: players way and that whole story, just like you did
Speaker 1: the other day, and that investigation that's going on right now.
Speaker 6: We had Evandralic on. We literally said, hey, we've got
Speaker 6: two stories.
Speaker 1: One makes one side not look good, one makes the
Speaker 1: other side not look good.
Speaker 6: Let's get into it.
Speaker 1: So we are trying our best to be as neutral
Speaker 1: as possible on my part and the team behind the scenes.
Speaker 6: We can only ask which will continue to do.
Speaker 1: Hey, we would love to have you on, but it's
Speaker 1: also not our obligation to not allow one side to
Speaker 1: come on our show. If the other side doesn't come on,
Speaker 1: both sides should come on our show and talk to us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the invites have been out there, so I'm
Speaker 1: with you. We will definitely keep trying and there shouldn't
Speaker 1: be anything to hide. And I give Rob credit. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's done more interviews over the past couple of years.
Speaker 1: I have no idea why he won't come on our show.
Speaker 1: We definitely cover topics that they don't love, but he
Speaker 1: went on barstool. They're not going to get this nitty
Speaker 1: gritty on some of the stuff that we're asking. But
Speaker 1: I agree, it would do a lot of good pr
Speaker 1: if he came on here and actually went on a
Speaker 1: place where he feels like you're going to get neutral
Speaker 1: questions and not one sided questions, and listen.
Speaker 3: Rob is good enough.
Speaker 2: He's been around the block enough that anyone who you interview,
Speaker 2: if they're good, they can bridge to whatever it is
Speaker 2: they want to say. They can respond however they want
Speaker 2: to respond to any question, even if it's not a
Speaker 2: direct answer to your question. I think people in the
Speaker 2: media have that experience. When I'm interviewed, if I don't
Speaker 2: want to, I never create a headline that I don't
Speaker 2: know i'm creating. I always have my mouth behind my brain,
Speaker 2: so I know what I'm saying. And so when you're
Speaker 2: being interviewed, it's your choice what you're going to give,
Speaker 2: what you're not going to give, what you're going to say.
Speaker 3: So I think you're right. I think keep asking and
Speaker 3: you're going to get them.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and yeah, just again for clarification, they don't
Speaker 1: neither side owns a penny. We're independent as how we
Speaker 1: love it just like you because then we want.
Speaker 2: Yeah I had it wrong, and I don't remember that.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that was last year. Whenever that was,
Speaker 2: I had it wrong, and I'd use corrections. I'd make mistakes.
Speaker 2: I'm live every day two hours. Boy do I make
Speaker 2: mistakes and I try to correct them, and I get
Speaker 2: a calls from people on both sides. I get plenty
Speaker 2: of calls from ownership and plenty of calls from the
Speaker 2: player's side and on the business side, and I'll make
Speaker 2: the correction because, as you know, with the microphone, you
Speaker 2: can't be right one hundred percent of the time.
Speaker 3: It's impossible.
Speaker 6: No, exactly same here.
Speaker 1: I talk to people way more now than I did
Speaker 1: when I did work for the league, agents, people calling hey,
Speaker 1: can you clarify this whatever?
Speaker 6: So anyway, all right, two more things to hit with you.
Speaker 1: One is the Braves are the only team that we
Speaker 1: really get a full fledged look at finances. So my
Speaker 1: question for you, and I know you've talked about this
Speaker 1: recently on your show, is every team trying to be
Speaker 1: the Raids, the Braves or a little bit of both.
Speaker 1: And it depends which kind of owner you are.
Speaker 2: I've never met an owner in my eighteen years who
Speaker 2: was writing himself dividend checks so he could fund a
Speaker 2: vacation to Europe, or buy a painting or buy a yacht.
Speaker 2: I just never saw it, and we saw the numbers.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the Union has the numbers too,
Speaker 2: I should say, and you know that. So who would
Speaker 2: I rather be? Rather be the team that has a
Speaker 2: chance to win every year and that wins rings. Now,
Speaker 2: I'd rather do it at a profit, I'd rather do it.
Speaker 2: I think MLB is starting get ready. They're releasing the
Speaker 2: fact that teams are getting crushed. They're losing money left
Speaker 2: right and center, and so there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 2: of this back and forth. So you're asking me what
Speaker 2: I'd rather be. I'm not a five to one C three.
Speaker 2: I want to make money and I want to win.
Speaker 2: And I too many years I put winning at the
Speaker 2: expense where I would sign players or bring players in
Speaker 2: that would add to our losses, thinking we're one player away,
Speaker 2: and every year but one it didn't work. And so
Speaker 2: at the end, what would I prefer? I prefer to
Speaker 2: win and make money. But maybe that's too much toask.
Speaker 4: You're funny, David. You know what, you can't get the
Speaker 4: owner out of you. I just can't get the owner
Speaker 4: out of you losing money. Who's losing money the game.
Speaker 4: All you hear is about the game is growing, and
Speaker 4: their ratings are up, and this and that. Yeah, so
Speaker 4: you're such an owner, David, I love it.
Speaker 6: Aj I love you too.
Speaker 2: I love you too. But I'm talking about operationally. It
Speaker 2: is true that no team has ever been sold at
Speaker 2: a loss. It's also true that no team has ever
Speaker 2: been sold where all of the money that was lost
Speaker 2: year over year was not recouped by the person who's sold.
Speaker 2: All of that is true, but it doesn't change the
Speaker 2: fact that operationally the teams lose money. So we can
Speaker 2: both be right, and I give this example to you
Speaker 2: and your family. Your house may be worth more today
Speaker 2: than it was when you bought it, but that increase
Speaker 2: in value doesn't help pay your property taxes. You need
Speaker 2: to have the cash from somewhere and baseball. Some owners
Speaker 2: have a cash problem.
Speaker 4: True because they don't know what they're doing, but that's
Speaker 4: a whole we you don't have enough time. I got
Speaker 4: a quick question for you. The Cleveland Browns lost their
Speaker 4: GM to the Colorado Rockies. Paul deep Ajust No.
Speaker 3: No, he's strategy officer.
Speaker 4: Yes, sorry, sorry, Like, what are we in Cleveland? Brown
Speaker 4: lump fans cheered their asses off when they lost his guys,
Speaker 4: Is this the right move for the Rockies?
Speaker 3: Boy?
Speaker 2: You know the Rockies. You both do on this call,
Speaker 2: We all do on this call. They're a different kind
Speaker 2: of organization from top to bottom.
Speaker 3: And Paul D.
Speaker 2: Podesta, he certainly was a shiny nickel once upon a time,
Speaker 2: way before Jonah Hill played him on Moneyball. And the
Speaker 2: question is does he have any sort of advantage anymore
Speaker 2: because in the old days he did, but everyone's caught
Speaker 2: up to him. Everyone's caught up to what was going on.
Speaker 2: It's thirty teams doing it. And as you know, like
Speaker 2: with the infield shift, when only one team's doing it,
Speaker 2: it's really cool. When thirty teams do it, you lose
Speaker 2: sort of the incremental advantage.
Speaker 3: Paul D.
Speaker 2: Podesta was not running the Browns the way he will
Speaker 2: have to with the Rockies. And the question is, I
Speaker 2: mean he's used to losing.
Speaker 3: We know that.
Speaker 2: The question is can he take the Rockies and work
Speaker 2: with the Montforts, who never go outside their organization. This
Speaker 2: is like the first time in decades that they're going
Speaker 2: with someone outside the organization, and will that person Deepodesta
Speaker 2: have the power to do something and who is going
Speaker 2: to be around him to do it, because, as you
Speaker 2: also know, it's not the president Baseball Operations, who's on
Speaker 2: the front line doing the scouting, who's inside the analytics department,
Speaker 2: they're just the decision maker on the top.
Speaker 3: They're not really doing much.
Speaker 2: So he's got to have an organization and the resources
Speaker 2: to really do stuff and then be right. And I
Speaker 2: think that's going to take some time, if at all.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm with you, I'm skeptical. I agree.
Speaker 1: I'm happy that it's at least somebody outside the organ
Speaker 1: to be like this is a little bit dated, but
Speaker 1: we'll see. We'll follow it and bring you back on
Speaker 1: to talk about it. Great catch up, David. Good to
Speaker 1: see you, and we'll catch you soon.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you guys.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your your well wishes and everything else you've
Speaker 2: done for me.
Speaker 3: Have a great time.
Speaker 4: By the way, David, I'm being South Florida soon, so
Speaker 4: you feel free to buy me dinner.
Speaker 2: I live in New York, but I'm in Thank you.
Speaker 2: AJ there you go.
Speaker 6: Thank you, David.