OT: Rogers Considering Sale of Blue Jays

[Tanner]

Rogers has always been a very passive and careful owner, so it'll be interesting if the Jays can be bought by a group that is willing to put money into the team to drive fan interest. They have always been one to pay the bare minimum to field a .500 roster in hopes that they somehow can make some noise in August/September... rather than investing ahead of time in the off-season to field a competitive side out of the gate.

True to their passive ways, Shapiro was telling fans recently we're in the running for Ohtani, which of course was a lie just to keep Jays fan hopes/interest high.

It's sad, because if Rogers and management decided to really pour money into the team to build a winner at all costs, they would have record-breaking profits come back to them year over year, because Toronto (and Canadian) baseball fans have no problem opening their wallets for a winner.

Shapiro never said the Jays were in the running for Ohtani. Ross Atkins mentioned being comfortable with selling the organization to him based on a number of factors, but no president or GM ever said their team was in the running of Ohtani, and that includes every other team. No one even knew what his preferences were until he was posted and started eliminating teams from contention.

As far as your point about Rogers, I don't think they get enough credit. The team was in shambles before they took over. Then their first real front office decision was to hire a Billy Beane disciple during the height of Moneyball, which showed some level of foresight in terms of where the game was going (unfortuntely Ricciardi was average at best as a GM). They allowed the Jays to sign Burnett and Ryan, back when starters getting five year deals was rare, and a reliever getting that much to this day doesn't happen. They allowed an extension for Wells which was ridiculous in hindsight but showed some level of commitment to keeping a player who was perceived to be the franchise's star positional player at the time. Then there's the whole 2012 madness with the Marlins trade and everything that happened after that. They have invested in the team. Maybe not as much as some people like, but more than enough to field a competitive team. They have just picked some suspect GM's and ran into a Yankees/Red Sox buzzsaw in the 2000's without a 2nd wild card to help them out.

Rogers gets too much flack. Some might be deserved, but definitely not all.

[ForeverTFC]

This can only be a good thing

Yeah unless it's sold to someone who comes in demanding taxpayer money for a new stadium and/or renovations and starts to threaten to look at "other situations" in "other cities" after a bloodbath starts with city council. Rogers has pissed me off but atleast we know we have stable ownership with them. Everyone dreams of that single owner who loves the sport and would do anything and spend anything to win a championship but the reality is not a lot of those type of owners are around

No one is doing that in Toronto. You can't do that in cities like Toronto, LA, NY, SF, etc.

[douggood]

Rogers has been a good to great owner for the jays. Very healthy payroll and hands off approach, what else could you ask from an ownership group.

Yes I realize that that goes against the narrative about rogers bad, mlse bad etc etc but perception doesn't match reality.

[icoholic]

Rogers has been a good to great owner for the jays. Very healthy payroll and hands off approach, what else could you ask from an ownership group.

Yes I realize that that goes against the narrative about rogers bad, mlse bad etc etc but perception doesn't match reality.

I'm with you on that, they've allowed the baseball people to do their job. I think they have opened their wallet when baseball people have wanted them to. I will never support $200mil + contracts for 30yo+ pitchers (Price), but that's the only case Rogers may have said "no" to spending.

Interbrew was a terrible owner.

[Big Mac Biyombo]

That Spanish company that owns the 407 should buy the team. Lord knows they have enough money after years of charging 10x the rate of American toll roads.

[mrdressup]

Team should be bought by its players and fans. Let this be the first foray into a democratic workplace approach to running businesses that benefit us socially.

[Raps in 4]

[Raps in 4]

Rogers has been a good to great owner for the jays. Very healthy payroll and hands off approach, what else could you ask from an ownership group.

Good joke. Made me laugh.

[Raps in 4]

MLSE rubbing their hands like birdman.

You do know that Rogers owns ~40% of MLSE, right?

[Raps in 4]

Curious to know who in Canada could afford to buy the Jays. Maybe David Thomson?

Rogers is an awful owner, we should be grateful that Bell was there to save them from their own incompetence.

Bell is just as bad at what they do as Rogers.

[Raps in 4]

Part of the rationale for bringing in Shapiro and eliminating a lot of the old Blue Jays management group was so that the Blue Jays would be a better fit culturally/business-wise within the Rogers corporate structure. And now they want to sell it?

Unless Rogers feels the new business team makes the Blue Jays more attractive to a prospective buyer, I'm not sure why they didn't stick with the status quo.

I can't imagine Shapiro is too happy here. Rogers has completely tied his hands.

[Dennis 37]

While I see your point the basketball and hockey arenas of that era were ad free. Baseball only had ads in the outfield. Because I grew up during a time where advertising in sports wasn't over the top, I am more sensitive to it. I have been told by younger fans that I need to catch up to the times. I conclude from that that younger people have been conditioned to accept advertising in places I find objectionable.

The issue is that you suffer from a common condition among those who have reached a certain age.

It's called nostalgia. And it can be explained cognitively. When you are younger, you have fewer accumulated experiences, so those you do have tend to be more impactful. And they have a greater influence on your beliefs. The same process, on a smaller scale, occurs the first time we meet someone and form a "first impression".

So you are cognitively inclined to believe that there is something wrong with the level of advertising in sports today because that isn't how it was when you formed your initial impression.

Similarly, the young people forming their initial impressions now will have no issue because it is just what they know.

In truth, neither old nor new is INHERENTLY better or worse. Lots of social changes haven't been for the better, but many have, especially for women and non-whites.

The key is to try to always look with fresh eyes at things as they are.

Would there be a level of advertising that crosses the line and is not due to nostalgia?

[icoholic]

Part of the rationale for bringing in Shapiro and eliminating a lot of the old Blue Jays management group was so that the Blue Jays would be a better fit culturally/business-wise within the Rogers corporate structure. And now they want to sell it?

Unless Rogers feels the new business team makes the Blue Jays more attractive to a prospective buyer, I'm not sure why they didn't stick with the status quo.

I can't imagine Shapiro is too happy here. Rogers has completely tied his hands.

In what way has Rogers tied Shapiro's hands?

[Raps in 4]

Part of the rationale for bringing in Shapiro and eliminating a lot of the old Blue Jays management group was so that the Blue Jays would be a better fit culturally/business-wise within the Rogers corporate structure. And now they want to sell it?

Unless Rogers feels the new business team makes the Blue Jays more attractive to a prospective buyer, I'm not sure why they didn't stick with the status quo.

I can't imagine Shapiro is too happy here. Rogers has completely tied his hands.

In what way has Rogers tied Shapiro's hands?

They aren't letting him rebuild right now.

[hankscorpioLA]

While I see your point the basketball and hockey arenas of that era were ad free. Baseball only had ads in the outfield. Because I grew up during a time where advertising in sports wasn't over the top, I am more sensitive to it. I have been told by younger fans that I need to catch up to the times. I conclude from that that younger people have been conditioned to accept advertising in places I find objectionable.

The issue is that you suffer from a common condition among those who have reached a certain age.

It's called nostalgia. And it can be explained cognitively. When you are younger, you have fewer accumulated experiences, so those you do have tend to be more impactful. And they have a greater influence on your beliefs. The same process, on a smaller scale, occurs the first time we meet someone and form a "first impression".

So you are cognitively inclined to believe that there is something wrong with the level of advertising in sports today because that isn't how it was when you formed your initial impression.

Similarly, the young people forming their initial impressions now will have no issue because it is just what they know.

In truth, neither old nor new is INHERENTLY better or worse. Lots of social changes haven't been for the better, but many have, especially for women and non-whites.

The key is to try to always look with fresh eyes at things as they are.

Would there be a level of advertising that crosses the line and is not due to nostalgia?

Sure. But what I would want to know is WHY you find the advertising so objectionable. Is it a complaint about advertising in general throughout society? Or is it just about sporting events? How does the advertising affect your experience? What impact does it have on you personally?

The truth is that this is really less about generational change than it is about technological change. More and more people view content on mobile devices, or they have a mobile device that they pay attention to during commercials, or they record the event so they can skip commercials. All of this has made traditional advertising less effective, while content that is integrated into the program has become more effective. So it is a natural shift for the industry to make the advertising more organic.

But consider that the only reason you have sports to watch on television is because the broadcaster can sell ad space. If sponsors stop paying for traditional ads and they don't have any alternatives available, guess what happens? No more sports on TV.

[kwajo]

Curious to know who in Canada could afford to buy the Jays. Maybe David Thomson?

Rogers is an awful owner, we should be grateful that Bell was there to save them from their own incompetence.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/richest-people/top-25-richest-canadians-2017/

There are a few young tech billionaires that might take a swing at ownership, but I can't see the old money elite like the Thomson family going for it. Likely it'll be a corporate purchase or possibly a group of investors with an individual as the face (ie. like MJ did with the Bobcats/Hornets).

[Peja Stojakovic]

Sure. But what I would want to know is WHY you find the advertising so objectionable. Is it a complaint about advertising in general throughout society? Or is it just about sporting events? How does the advertising affect your experience? What impact does it have on you personally?

The truth is that this is really less about generational change than it is about technological change. More and more people view content on mobile devices, or they have a mobile device that they pay attention to during commercials, or they record the event so they can skip commercials. All of this has made traditional advertising less effective, while content that is integrated into the program has become more effective. So it is a natural shift for the industry to make the advertising more organic.

But consider that the only reason you have sports to watch on television is because the broadcaster can sell ad space. If sponsors stop paying for traditional ads and they don't have any alternatives available, guess what happens? No more sports on TV.

actually it costs next to nothing to stream live events, ads or not.

like i can watch every g league game on youtube now. the nba has no reason to make that possible, and they don't really sell ads on it at any significant scale. they do it because it's easy and convenient to do so.

meanwhile in the big leagues, the ads chase the interested fans, they don't make anything extra possible, at least at the game broadcast level

you're just using the nostalgia argument to justify change for change's sake while simultaneously pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds re: ads. i'm definitely younger than you too

[hankscorpioLA]

Sure. But what I would want to know is WHY you find the advertising so objectionable. Is it a complaint about advertising in general throughout society? Or is it just about sporting events? How does the advertising affect your experience? What impact does it have on you personally?

The truth is that this is really less about generational change than it is about technological change. More and more people view content on mobile devices, or they have a mobile device that they pay attention to during commercials, or they record the event so they can skip commercials. All of this has made traditional advertising less effective, while content that is integrated into the program has become more effective. So it is a natural shift for the industry to make the advertising more organic.

But consider that the only reason you have sports to watch on television is because the broadcaster can sell ad space. If sponsors stop paying for traditional ads and they don't have any alternatives available, guess what happens? No more sports on TV.

actually it costs next to nothing to stream live events, ads or not.

like i can watch every g league game on youtube now. the nba has no reason to make that possible, and they don't really sell ads on it at any significant scale. they do it because it's easy and convenient to do so.

meanwhile in the big leagues, the ads chase the interested fans, they don't make anything extra possible, at least at the game broadcast level

you're just using the nostalgia argument to justify change for change's sake while simultaneously pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds re: ads. i'm definitely younger than you too

Actually, I am probably older than you.

Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is.

What does any of that have to do with technological change driving broadcasters to seek out new revenue sources as the value of traditional advertising drops?

Ads are the ONLY reason why games are broadcast. Without ad revenue there would be no games.

And in case you forgot...the G-League itself is an ad because it is all sponsored by Gatorade. That is who is paying for those broadcasts. And why do they do that?

To sell more Gatorade.

[navyblue]

Sure. But what I would want to know is WHY you find the advertising so objectionable. Is it a complaint about advertising in general throughout society? Or is it just about sporting events? How does the advertising affect your experience? What impact does it have on you personally?

The truth is that this is really less about generational change than it is about technological change. More and more people view content on mobile devices, or they have a mobile device that they pay attention to during commercials, or they record the event so they can skip commercials. All of this has made traditional advertising less effective, while content that is integrated into the program has become more effective. So it is a natural shift for the industry to make the advertising more organic.

But consider that the only reason you have sports to watch on television is because the broadcaster can sell ad space. If sponsors stop paying for traditional ads and they don't have any alternatives available, guess what happens? No more sports on TV.

actually it costs next to nothing to stream live events, ads or not.

like i can watch every g league game on youtube now. the nba has no reason to make that possible, and they don't really sell ads on it at any significant scale. they do it because it's easy and convenient to do so.

meanwhile in the big leagues, the ads chase the interested fans, they don't make anything extra possible, at least at the game broadcast level

you're just using the nostalgia argument to justify change for change's sake while simultaneously pretending we live in the best of all possible worlds re: ads. i'm definitely younger than you too

Actually, I am probably older than you.

Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is.

What does any of that have to do with technological change driving broadcasters to seek out new revenue sources as the value of traditional advertising drops?

Ads are the ONLY reason why games are broadcast. Without ad revenue there would be no games.

And in case you forgot...the G-League itself is an ad because it is all sponsored by Gatorade. That is who is paying for those broadcasts. And why do they do that?

To sell more Gatorade.

even streaming on facebook live is an ad for facebook live, to get word out there about that service. they ditched youtbe and the much better experience on there for facebook because they got the better offer from there.

[CrookedJ]

1. We all hate Rogers.

2. They haven't been that terrible as owners. Not great, but they haven't made the team cut salary really. They have brought in a decent FO group. The things we bitched about - like not backing a bottomless dump truck of money up to David Price's house - have often shown to be decent decisions.

3. Its not like Mark Cuban is standing by. Fun billionaires treasuring winning over $$ are not going to buy the team.

4. It will always be the Skydome to me.