The Kevin Sheehan Show - Washington's O-Line Ranking + Barry Svrluga

Episode Date: July 8, 2025

Kevin opened with some "Redskins" talk before turning to Washington's 2025 PFF O-line ranking. Some RFK news along with a bit of tennis too. Barry Svrluga/Washington Post jumped on from St. Louis to talk about the Nats' changes and what's coming next. Mike Ozanian/CNBC was a guest to discuss his "Top 20 Sports Empires" list which includes two area owners. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it, but you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheehan Show. Here's Kevin. I've got two guests on the show with me today. Barry's Verluga is going to join me from St. Louis, the Nats and Cardinals tonight in the first of three out there, the first game for the Nationals with their interim manager, Miguel Cairo.

And the first with their interim GM, Mike DeBardo. DeBardo is going to hold. an introductory press conference before the game. So Barry's going to jump on with us before that press conference. Following Barry, remember Mike Ozanian from CNBC? I had him on the podcast at least three times during the days of who will Dan sell the team to? Will he actually sell the team? Mike put out a list of the top 20 sports empires.

and two of the top 20 own professional sports teams here in D.C. Barry next and then Mike Ozanian in the final segment of the show, a show which is presented by Window Nation, of course. Call them at 86690 Nation or head towindonation.com if you need new windows. Some name talk to kick off the show. This from Nathaniel R. Daniel writes, Kevin, heard your rant on radio today about Redskins never coming back. So much for it's not over till it's over.

I didn't take you for a quitter. I'm tremendously disappointed. Oh, Nathaniel, I don't want to tremendously disappoint you. This from David, David writes, Kevin, you hurt me today. I didn't think I'd ever give up on Redskins coming back. But if you've given up, it's like when LBJ said, we've lost Cronkite, now we've lost the war. That's funny. I don't think that's the exact quote, was it?

It had something to do with Cronkite, you know, coming back from Vietnam and basically declaring that the war was not winnable, I think, or that it was good. I think Stalmate was the word. and then LBJ said something like, you know, if I've lost Kronkite, I've lost the election. I think that's what it was. I could be wrong. If somebody knows specifically what our guy David was referring to, especially if I had it completely wrong. I don't think I had it completely wrong.

I'm in the right decade, which would be the 60s, the late 60s, and it was Vietnam-related. And I do know that Kronkite came back. went on the air and for the first time, right, gave an opinion rather than just gave the news and said, you know, this war will end in a stalemate or something like that. And then LBJ said something about if we've lost Kronkite, we've lost something. And then LBJ decided not to seek re-election in 68. Remember that. I don't know if the Kronkite comments forced him to bow out of the 68 election. The 68 election, of course, won by Nixon over Humphrey.

I know that. Of course, it would have been Nixon versus RFK, had he not been assassinated in June of 68 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, I believe, on the night of June 4th, early morning, June 5th. Rosie Greer grabbed the gun from Sir Han, Sirhan. Um, most of you don't know this about me. I am not an expert, but I can go deep on presidential assassinations and then, you know, assassinations like in 68, Martin Luther King in April, uh, and then RFK in June. I'll save some of that for when Tommy's on.

Uh, for both you and, uh, Nathaniel, David, I didn't just give up. on the Redskins name coming back. I gave up on that every bit of a year or so ago. I think it was longer than a year ago. You know, I, God, man, Sabah, I love you, Sabah. Sabah sends me so many DMs multiple times a week. And I would say 90% of the time, it is about, actually not true. It is split now between Redskins-related conversations.

and also Caitlin Clark. She is a massive Caitlin Clark fan, as am I. So 50-50 on Caitlin Clark DMs and Redskins' name DMs from Sabah, the DMs that she sends me. And she just, you know, she desperately wants Redskins to come back. By the way, so do I. We just have a different view as to the status of that. I think it's completely dead.

Others don't. Here are Sabah's last two Redskin name DMs to me. Kevin, keep talking about our name and stop saying it will never come back. Keep the pressure on Josh Harris. Remember, Snyder said in all caps, I will never change our name, and he changed it. So just because Josh says, we're not changing our name doesn't mean it's over, but we must keep fighting, exclamation point. Kevin, please push this, exclamation. point, exclamation point. Stop saying the name is never coming back. More exclamation points.

Be a failure, not a quitter. Man, I've been called a quitter twice here early in the show. So look, Sabah, David, Nathaniel, and so many more of you. It's over. It's been over. I hate it just like you do. but like I said this morning on radio, it's time to stop digging. I stopped digging a while ago.

The NFL is a $26 billion industry, and it's not going back to unnecessary controversy over a team name. Nike, Amazon, Apple, Anheuser-Bush, FedEx, Pepsi. They're holding the hammer. You know, maybe at some point we can get the logo back into the mix because that's never been a controversial subject or logo or topic. Never has been. But the NFL has 26 billion reasons for not entertaining even the suggestion of going back to the old name. If the name had never left in the summer of 2020, it would still be here.

You know, clearly. In fact, you know, the current environment here in the summer of 2025, five years later, the environment we're in now, it would probably be the least amount of pushback or even discussion about the name. We're just in a completely different, you know, environment five years later than we were five years ago. But it's not still here. It's gone. The toothpaste is out of the toothpaste tube. And yes, others of you, you know, tweeted me to say, did you hear what President Trump said? I did. I heard what he said. He was asked about the name yesterday. How are people asking about the name, you know, during this horrific last couple of days of news out of Texas?

Look, you can ask whatever you want. president said, and it's not a surprising answer, and it's not even controversial, really. He said, well, you want me to make a controversial statement? I wouldn't have changed the name, but that's there, and I think he was about to say prerogative, but he said, it just doesn't have the same ring to me. But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So if they're winning, all of a sudden commander sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed the name. He has said this before, you know, look, Dan had a chance. Dan had the chance with better behavior, less antagonistic, you know, a less antagonistic approach, you know, when he said, you know,

read it in all caps, never, ever, ever, never, never. you know, there needed to be more, I think, of finesse involved, including, by the way, you know, really pushing solid relationships, helping financially the most impactful, the most influential of Indian reservations by petitioning dictionaries for a new definition. Somebody had that idea about 15 years ago. and even presented it to Bruce Allen one day. He looked at me like I had eight eyes. And just by being a decent human being,

you know, if Dan had been any of those things or had pushed any of those things, he wouldn't have been the target that he became in the summer of 2020. It's not coming back. I'm not just quitting now. I learned a year and a half ago, probably. This dog ain't hunting. I mean, it isn't. The uniforms, that's different. And we're

going to learn more about those, or at least the alt uniforms for 2025 tomorrow. And I'm excited to see what they look like. Like I've been saying since last October, you know, I was told that something in 2025, you know, alt jersey wise and maybe something more permanent after that. And what it will look like is something much closer to what the uniforms used to look like versus this ridiculous, you know, combination of things that they wear now since 2022. Actually, my favorites are the alts from the last couple of years, the black jerseys. We learned something about RFK today, I think, or yesterday, because I read this, I think it was in Axios.

Somebody sent it to me, that it was in Axios yesterday. Andy Van Horn was hired by the team in March to be the head of real estate, the executive vice president of real estate for the commanders. And he had the following quote to Axios as it relates to the fear associated with the delay of the RFK Stadium vote by the city council. and it being somewhat in limbo. He said, quote, we feel real urgency that we need to have a decision from the council as quickly as possible to stay on a 2030 track. If we slip past August, it gets more like a 2031 delivery because we have to be moving utilities mid to early next year. utilities, I'm assuming, water, you know, electricity, all that stuff.

So we know that they've wanted the 2030 delivery. We haven't heard anybody say specifically, I don't think. I had Mark Eynon last week, and he wasn't specific about any of this, other than, you know, the sooner, the better. But when he says, you know, if we slip past August, it gets more like a 2031 delivery. I think that's the first time that we've heard that if the council doesn't vote on this until mid-September, then it's 2031 instead of 2030. At least according to Andy Van Horn, and maybe he's just trying to create more of a sense of urgency. One, two other things real quickly before we get to Barry.

PFF put out their rankings heading into the 2025 season of the best offensive lines in the NFL. The Eagles have the best offensive line in the NFL. Obviously, I think any of you would have guessed if it's not number one, it's going to be in the top three or four. What's interesting is several other NFC contenders are pretty high. in these rankings, or I shouldn't say pretty high. They're higher than Washington. San Francisco is at 12, Detroit's at 13, Green Bay's at 14, the Rams are at 15. I think all four of those teams are considered to be contenders in the NFC. Washington's offensive line ranked 19th by pro football focus. So a back half of the league offensive line. Here's what they wrote. The commander's offensive line was a pleasant

surprise in 2024, and the unit should only get better with Laramie Tunsell now in the fold. The veteran left tackle is still a pass-blocking menace, earning an 89.1 PFF pass-blocking grade in 2024, fourth best among 80 qualifying offensive tackles. This unit's true standing will depend on how quickly right guard Sam Cosme can return after suffering a torn ACL. in January. Of course, we know that was during the playoff game against Detroit. I don't know. 19th, 15th. It's somewhere around the middle of the league, I would guess. I'm obviously a fan of Laramie Tunsell and that trade. They upgraded significantly there. We don't know until he steps into the lineup as a player in a real race.

regular season game, what their first round pick, Josh Connerly Jr. is going to be, but there's obviously a lot of optimism around his future. You know, Cosmi is out for a while. We'll see if he can get back early enough in the season because he is a difference maker. Because certainly you would say, Tunsell's their best offensive lineman based on what we know. And Cosme is the second best offensive linemen. You know, they were much better last year with Biotis at center. We saw that when he actually was out for a game against New Orleans, how much they struggled. Brandon Coleman, more likely than not moving inside. Yeah, I mean, it's a better offensive line. In 19th, I don't know enough about, you know, the PFF grades on all of the other, you know, 31 teams,

but I would have guessed going into it if somebody had said, where do you think Washington's offensive line is per PFF heading into the 2025 season? I would have guessed somewhere around 16, you know, somewhere around the middle of the league. You know, they've got a pro-bow caliber left tackle, and when healthy, they've got, you know, a pro-ball caliber guard. You know, certainly Cosme could become something like that. They might have a little bit more depth, too. You know, Allegretti's probably going to start at some point.

Wiley's still on the team. Trent Scott's still on the team. They added Nate Herbig from Pittsburgh. You know, it's better than it was. That's all, for our standpoint, from our standpoint, it's better than it was last year on paper. Stay healthy. Hope that Connerley Jr. is the real deal.

Hope Coleman ends up being a stud at guard, and hope Cosmi comes back. you know, with plenty of the season still left. Last thing that I wanted to just mention. I watched something this morning and then was paying attention to it when I was doing live radio as well. I watched the Wimbledon quarterfinal match between number one Sabalanka. She's an absolute, you know, number one in the world, massive favorite to win Wimbledon. I watched her face

Laura Sigamund from Germany If you watch this you probably know why I'm going to talk about it Sigamin forced Sabalanka to a third set in which she ended up having a 4-3 lead in a third set and lost 6-4 Sigamund somebody that I mentioned

and that's the way you pronounce her name I thought it was Sigmund but it's Sigamund two years ago, she played Cocoa Gough in the first round of the U.S. Open, and I came in here the next day and spent 15 or 20 minutes talking about her performance, in part because she was booed out of Arthur Ashe Stadium at the end of it. She lost in three hard-fought sets, and then she held this press conference that I actually played much of on the show.

I remember playing it, because it was incredibly emotional, and she was very, very upset that the crowd had treated her the way that it had treated her. They were, you know, coughing and sneezing and yelling in the midst of her serve as the ball was in the air. And she understood the rooting for the American. She just couldn't understand why they were rooting so hard against her. But part of the reason is her style of play. She's very methodical. She's slow.

She is 37 years old. She's the oldest quarter finalist on the Wimbledon women's side ever. And the oldest quarter finalist at a major since Billy Jean King made, I think, the U.S. open semis back in the early to mid-70s. And she does it not with power, not with precision or great, you know, a great talent. She does it with guile. She does it with brains. does it with craftiness. If you know anything about tennis, this is the ultimate sort of awkward

game. Slices everything, forehand side, backhand side, but then can hit out and hit with power. Drop shots from the most improbable places on the court. One serve is at 100, and then the next first serve is at 78, you know, a twister trying to kick it to the outside, barely hitting inside the box, the service box. She tries to play a game in which it makes it uncomfortable for her opponent. She's knocked off in her career, 12 top 10 players, has been primarily a doubles player, but has now made it to, and made it today to the quarterfinals and almost beat the number one player in the world. It was captivating. I love sports when you have an overmatched team or an overmatched player. And that team, the way it plays, or that player the way it plays,

has figured out a style, a strategy with their head, with their thought that keeps them in it with a chance to win it. That's why I loved what she did against Cocoa Gough two years ago. And I really was upset that the New York crowd treated her that way because I thought it was phenomenal to watch. Great competition. She's also tough as nails, clutch, and she almost pulled it off today. I bet her before it went off this morning,

at plus 750, she was a massive underdog. I also bet her plus six and a half games for the entire match, and I bet that the match would go to three sets. So at mybooky.orgi.g, I made some money, even though she lost. I won two of the three bets that I placed. I just, for anybody that watched her this morning and knows a bit about her, I don't know, I appreciated it.

You know, I've told you guys the story many times in the past. My senior year in high school, we had a coach who was just incredible. His name was Marty Dickerson, a legendary Montgomery County coach at Blair before he went to Whitman. He also was a great football coach at Whitman as well. We had lost our first five games by like an average of 20 to 25 points a game. We just were not, we were overmatched talent-wise. He came in one Saturday morning for practice and he installed a double high post delay offense. No shot clock back then.

In fact, Montgomery County didn't get a shot clock until very recently. We ended up winning, I think, eight of our final 12 games playing stall ball. We would hold the ball and we would only. take backdoor layups. We would lull the opponent to sleep. We became so proficient in running the offense that we actually started to score. But initially, we were, you know, in 19 to 18 games. The first game we used it, we lost 19 to 18 in double overtime at Blair. They were ranked 10th in the city in that moment. We ended up, you know, winning games 35 to 33. And then we got so good at it, we're scoring 40 and 42 a game.

I mean, that was a lot. But he figured out a way to take a very overmatched team in most instances and make us competitive and give us a chance to win. And nobody wanted us to make the postseason. And we missed it by one game because nobody wanted to play us at the end of that year. And nobody likes to play Laura Sigamund. They hate playing her. It's frustrating. It's annoying, as many of the announcers said.

But I don't know. I really appreciated it. And I've sort of followed her since that Cocoa Gough match. She's 37. There's not much left here. But what a run she had at Wimbledon. All right. Let's get to Barry's Verluga next right after these words from a few of our sponsors. I introduced many of you to Goldbelly a few months back. And I want to keep talking about it today because Goldbelly has the most iconic famous foods from restaurants all across the United States,

aggregated on one amazing site, and they ship it free to your door anywhere in the country. They'll ship you iconic Chicago Deep Dish Pizza from Lumal Nottis. Had that. They'll ship you New York's best most famous cheesecake from juniors. Had that delivered. If you're craving barbecue, they ship the legendary Franklin's barbecue straight from Texas to your door. And you have to try the one and only world-renowned stone crab delivered from Joe's in Miami. So if you're looking for that perfect gift or want to impress your friends and family with an epic meal next time you host,

go to goldbelly.com and get free shipping and 20% off your first order with promo code Sheehan. That's goldbelly.com code Sheehan for free shipping and 20% off your first order. order. Window Nation is the presenting sponsor of this show and this segment. If you've been struggling with the heat and humidity, you're not alone. If your air conditioning has been running on full blast 24-7, you've got older windows that aren't efficient enough. I would recommend calling Window Nation. Have them come out and look at your window situation. Give you an estimate on the windows that need to be replaced. You'll find out which windows actually need to be replaced. It'll take an hour or less.

They'll schedule it when it's convenient for you. You just call them at 86690 Nation or head to windownation.com. If you decide to move forward with Window Nation and actually purchase windows from Window Nation, right now you'll get 50% off all Windows styles with no interest charged for five years. So you're not going to pay interest until the year 2030. They'll get those windows installed in a day or less. Call them now. 86690 Nation or visit windownation.com. All right. Jumping on with me right now is Barry's Verluga from the Washington Post.

At Barry, S-V-R-L-U-G-A on X on Twitter. He's out in St. Louis where the Nats will take the field tonight with their new interim manager, Miguel Cairo, two days after the firings of both Mike Rizzo and Davy Martinez. in Barry's column the other day, he talked about at the very beginning the surprise. And I was like, where's he going with this? And then you essentially said, you know, and I could read from it, but I'll let you describe it.

Oh, my God, they were paying attention. Who knew? So was that the biggest surprise for you that something was actually done about this situation of 37 and 15? and not a very good team in a year that they hope to be making progress towards something resembling 500? Yes, and I think it's not just about 37 and 53. It's about the second most losses in baseball since the World Series title of 2019

and a big picture failure in drafting and developing. There's a lot of reasons, a lot of complex reasons that go into that, and we can talk about some of them. But making this move, or these two moves, forces the learner family to make some pretty big-time decisions, and decisions, frankly, that they haven't made more than once over the course of their stewardship of the franchise. So, yes, they installed Mike Rizzo as the general manager, permanent general manager in 2009. They did do interviews with other candidates at that time. But since then, other than rolling pruss and managers, they haven't had this kind of big picture sweeping change.

And I kind of always thought, and I think Rizzo and Davey kind of thought, look, we're here until we don't want to be here because this is not a very engaged ownership group. They have not obviously put financial resources into major league payroll or a lot of other areas. but it doesn't seem to me like they put a lot of emotional energy and time energy into the operation. So the surprise wasn't, oh, a bad team that's been bad for a while has to change its leadership. It's that ownership was engaged enough to make that difficult move. All right. You mentioned big decisions to make, and I want to get to that. But let's just talk about how we got here.

because, you know, with Tommy yesterday, I said, well, it wasn't always bad. Over an eight-year period, they went to five post-season, won a World Series, and won more games than anybody but the Dodgers over that period of time. It wasn't a one or two-year aberration. It was an eight-year run. Something was going well. Mike Rizzo was highly thought of in any sort of ranking of general managers. So in your opinion, we talked about a number of things,

but what went wrong post-2019, or was it headed in that direction and we just couldn't see it? Well, I mean, that's a really good point at the end there, Kevin, because the team that won the World Series was, in fact, an older team. You know, with Scherzer and Strasbourg and Zimmerman and, you know, bit pieces like a Struble Cabrera. Yes, Soto was on that team. Yes, Victor Robles was on that team. But by and large, that was an expensive veteran corps. And by the summer of 2021, when that group was pretty much still together, and they weren't performing well, they got to the deadline and made the difficult decision to trade almost anything that wasn't nailed down, but leading the way with Trey Turner and Max Scherzer to the Dodgers.

So there was a baseball kind of chronological evolution that that old roster was going to eventually crumble. underneath that are two very, very important layers. One is that the drafts that the nationals did from 2012 to 2021 just did not pan out in impact major league players, both that they could use for their own selves and that they could use in trade. Yes, Lucas Iolito was used in a trade for Adam Eaton that helped them win a World Series. Yes, Hayes-Lazardo pitcher was used in a trade that brought them Sean Doolittle and Ryan Madsen that were very important relievers for them. But by and large, they did not produce year after

year guys that were going to come through their system that could either be used as trade chips or make an impact on the Major League roster. Then go beyond that. And really at the core of this is you come out of the pandemic in 2020, the learner's real estate, commercial real estate business was hit hard. I shouldn't say it that way. Commercial real estate businesses in the United States at that time were hit very hard. Do I know specifics about the learners? I don't, but I think it's not too much of a stretch to draw a line between, ouch, our industry is really hurting to, oh my goodness, we're not going to put money into our baseball team, which is our side business, a business that we're not, we're not interested in losing lots of money on.

So then you get to a point where those things go hand in hand. They're not developing cheap talent to bring up to the majors. They're not signing players to long-term deals that could kind of bring structure to the clubhouse and bring structure to the organization. Rizzo's compromise because not only are they not spending on major league payroll, but they're not spending on building up his front office, his scouting department, his player development department, he's had trying to do more with less, and the results are less across the board.

So when I say it's many-layered, I think it's many-layered. They're all related, and owners can't be fired. So they fire the people that failed to do more with less. Would things be any different if Ted Lerner were still alive and able to make an impact on the operations of the baseball team? So I think the answer has to be, yes, how, I'm not sure, but certainly in the process of how the learners come to decisions. It's been very difficult, is my understanding, since Ted Lerner's death in 2023, for the next generation, which is Mark, his son, Deborah Cohen, one of his daughters, Mark Marlott Tannenbaum, his other daughter, and then the two sons-in-laws, Ed Cohen, and Bob Tannenbaum. They don't always see eye to eye on stuff.

They want all the decisions to be in consensus. But Ted Lerner was their North Star, their guiding light. And he was the one, much like Bud Seagli used to have a magic way of getting 30 to zero votes because he knew how to straw poll and get consensus on stuff. Ted was the guy who did that. He was the self-made man. and he was a really powerful presence for them. I think they would say, honestly, that of course they miss him,

not just miss him like a dad or a relative, but miss him as the person that would always lead the way. Now, it's possible that if Ted Lerner were around, that Mike Rizzo and Dave Martinez would have been fired sooner because there would have been more decisiveness, or they would have sold the team when they had offers for it. we've been, we've reported that they had at least one offer worth more than $2.5 billion. Like, would he have said, yes, that's enough. Let's do this. And they would have, they would have

gotten out. I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I think they're probably unknowable. But I think you can say with some degree of confidence that if Ted Lerner had lived, something would be different because he was the director of the orchestra. Refresh my memory. When was that $2.5 billion offer made? Was it before they actually were thinking about selling the team? No, no, no. It was during that process. During that process, when they said, look, we're exploring options to sale. And they'll say to this time, like, we weren't always going to sell. And Mark Lerner told me, you know, I think that got kind of blown out of proportion. That's not true. They were happy to sell if they got the right number. We know, and I've said this a million times and in a million places, like the learners operate that if they think something is worth X and you offer X minus one, they will not sell to you. So I don't know. for sure what the number they want is, but I have been told by people who know the process that 2.5 wouldn't get it done. And that's kind of staggering given that Steve Cohen bought the Mets for

$2.35 billion. Yeah, no doubt. And to your point, you wonder whether or not the price they were looking for was $2.5.1 billion. Because, you know, there's a story that's gone around for years that, you know, back in 99, they had interest in buying the Redskins. And they had a number in mind. And it was, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 million. Obviously, Snyder and that group bought it for $800. And they felt like they could never make money had they paid a dime more than whatever the number was. It was $600 and something.

Think about where it would be had they made the purchase. By the way, it would have probably rewritten the last quarter century as far as the football team goes as well. Look, you've said something about the draft from 2012 to 2021. And we've heard this a lot as it relates to Mike Rizzo. And the reason people think it's justifiable as to why he was let go is his inability to draft and then develop what they drafted. Was there Barry a consistent reason? or theme for the bad drafting year after year? Well, I mean, Rizzo empowered his minor league teammate Chris Klein,

who was a scout with him in Arizona, to be his scouting director here. And for a lot of years, it worked out. I mean, they had one, one with Strasbourg and Harper. They did a great job with Anthony and Rendon. There were other players during the early years that it worked out with. I mean, Jordan Zimmerman was a Mike Rizzo draftee, And he was a really effective pitcher here, and part of that early core that was winning division titles.

I think what happened is in those later drafts, as Klein's team did not produce impact players, it was a little bit – Mike was a little bit slow to react to, hey, we're not getting the production out of these draft that we used to. And Mike Rizzle made mistakes himself. I mean, he will tell you that they took a left. city out of Houston named Seth Romero, who his scouts, Klein and his team said, look, this guy's got character issues. We're not really comfortable with taking him. Rizzo, a scout himself who had seen him was like, the guy's got top five pick stuff,

we'll fix the person. And it didn't work out. He got suspended in the minors. He's out of the organization. I believe he's out of baseball. So there's blame to go around on this. But overall, I think it was a slowness to react. to when you weren't getting results.

And then other people would tell you that there just didn't seem to be a modern process in place in which it wasn't just the scouts saying, look, I saw this guy do this, and this is what I rate him at power, and this is what I rate him as a runner, and this is what I rate him defensively, but a much more analytical approach. And that doesn't just mean numbers, but like a process in like, you tell me what you value. Do you value exit velocity off the bat? Do you value top speed as a runner? Or do you just value your own opinion?

I think whoever runs the baseball operations department going forward will be much more likely to have a process-oriented process during the draft. All right. Before we get to what you wrote today in sort of these big decisions that the ownership group has to make, we've both lived through, you know, anger to apathy with the football team. I mean, anger is much better, as we all know, than indifference, than apathy. Where is the Nats fan base right now? Angry or indifferent?

I think angry. I think angry because this is a flashpoint to say, okay, you finally did something. You finally showed us that you, you care. about something, but the anger is you're the real problem, learner family. Like, you can't fire yourself. What are you going to do about this? And I think, I mean, part of what I wrote today about since Stan Kasten leaving in 2010, never having a team president, like this situation screams for someone to stand up and say, not just in a statement, here's what we did, here's why we did it, here's how we expect to move forward. Here's how we expect to move forward. Here's how

much we care. Here's how much the losing hurts us, and here's how much we're listening to you about the reasons you don't want to buy tickets to our lousy products. Like, that doesn't have to be Mark Lerner, who is not really comfortable speaking publicly. It could be a forward-facing person that oversees the entire operation and is a conduit to ownership and is a proxy for ownership and speaks ownership language and can represent the feelings of ownership to the fan base. So that's a long-winded way of saying I think we're still at the anger part, although attendance numbers might show you that anger has turned to apathy. So you started, I think, the answer to this next question.

The big decisions that need to be made, and your column this morning, the nationals need more than a new GM. They need a voice. So is that voice a team president slash Stan Kasten like hire? I think it is. And frankly, Kevin, I don't think it should be an internal one. I think something that's happened here, you know, and go back to Kasten's departure in 2010, like they left that void. They actively kind of said, what do we need a team president for, and that left Mike Rizzo often to answer questions that he had no business answering, like stuff to do with Maffin or questions about payroll and ownership. Like, he ran the baseball operations department.

There should be somebody else there who can answer the, you know, one step above those questions, the kind of umbrella business and baseball. So part of my picking apart their or complaints about their, processes are, they've had a number of people leave in the past couple of years, people in communications, people in philanthropy, people in business, people, and the legal side, like, there's been some drain in personnel from all angles of the front office. And unless I'm missing someone, in all cases, they have simply bumped up the next in line and not gone outside or sought outside input to hire.

Are any of those individuals not qualified for the jobs they have? I don't know. Maybe they all are. But I think that not looking outside shows a lack of curiosity and a lack of wanting to find out what the industry standards are

and bring in the best and brightest from all over the place and make this place a destination, not just a place where like, you just shuffle around people when they leave and it doesn't get any energy and new thoughts from external sources. Of the 30 major league teams, do you know how many of those 30 have, you know, between the general manager and ownership, a team president or, you know,

something resembling that title? You know, I should know that, and I don't. I mean, Kasten works in a very similar position as he did here in L.A. and serves as kind of the point person for ownership. but I don't, the answer your question is I don't know the number. I just know that with this franchise, that has been lacking. And Kevin, that position is not as important in a place where the ownership is engaged in actively talking with the fans. Steve Cohen probably doesn't need a president the same way that the nationals do because he is out there wearing a Mets hat saying,

oh my gosh, we're more disappointing than I thought. and I'm surprised by this. I'm going to work hard to help the baseball operations. People get this fixed. You know, that's a different role than the learners want to play. So let's just say that you're right, and I think you probably are, that that should be the move based on the way they own this team. Could they attract anybody of high quality to that position?

Fascinating. Fascinating question. And I think this is true for both baseball operations and if they wanted to hire that kind of person. And these are not just candidates who will be interviewing to try to become a leader with the Washington Nationals. These should be and have to be two-way conversations where the learners sit down and say, hey, we're interested in what you think of the current operation, how you would make improvements, what your vision is. And that person would have to say, okay, learners, I'm interested in if I say we need X, Y, and Z, for the front office in personnel and analysis in technology, are you going to back me? Are you going

to fund me? Is this going to be, or am I going to have to do this on a shoestring? Because if you're not committed to building it to my vision, then I'm not committed to coming here. So that goes for a theoretical team president, and it certainly goes for the president of the baseball operations, a general manager. So how do you think this group will react to conducting an interview in which maybe they're being interviewed at the same time? I mean, I think if they are still interested in owning this team, which they say that they are, then they have to acknowledge that it hasn't worked for several years, and they have to be open to new ideas and not be scared to do something that they haven't done in the past. If you go back to the beginning of our conversation,

and my surprise that they even engaged to make a move, it's because it gets them to a scary part. They were comfortable with Mike Rizzo. They were comfortable with Dave Martinez, and in some ways just rolling it back with them all the time, takes them out of the picture because they could say, well, fans could kind of turn to Rizzo and Davey and say, well, what have they been doing?

Now the WIC is turned up on ownership, because it's not just about making a good hire at president of baseball ops, but it's telling, it's making that good hire because you've assured that person that we're not going to do it how we've been doing it because we know that doesn't work in modern baseball. Times have changed and we have to change with them. You guide us through this process and we will back you financially and emotionally. It's such a great point. And that is that it's crazy that people worth billions and billions of

actually in many cases will back off being front and center. They prefer the status quo. This isn't their only business, by the way. And in some cases, fear the spotlight then turning to them. And that may have been the reason. It took so long, or at least part of the reason. So will they do it? Will they do a commitment?

Will they have enough self-awareness? to understand that what they've been doing hasn't been working and understanding that they don't, you know, of what they don't know in the running of this business and hire somebody and give them the autonomy to, you know, build a winner. I'm not sure, Kevin. I mean, I just don't know because there's no evidence that they've done it that way before. And there's, because they haven't taken questions,

and we're about to talk to Mike DeBardo, so maybe he'll have some insight on his conversations with ownership since Sunday night, but they haven't taken a question like, what are you committed to? If a candidate comes to you and says, okay, put Major League payroll aside, I need these resources throughout our minor league system. I need these resources in our Major League front office. Will you fund that? But, you know, we don't know because they haven't put themselves in position to be asked the question.

So history doesn't tell us that they would support that, but history has also not, you know, they're at a different point than they have been ever in this operation because when they were bad initially, they were bad intentionally. And that was in an organized fashion under Stan Kasten and Mike Rizzo to get number one draft picks to turn them into franchise changing. pieces to fill in around those franchise changing pieces, not just with the big deals for Jason Worth and Max Scherzer, but with ancillary deals for pick somebody, Adam LaRose, or Daniel Murphy, or the pieces that were more three-year deals around that you also have to do to have a competitive 26-man roster.

They haven't been through this. Oh, my God, we're not good, and we don't know how. to get out of it positioned before. So it's really in a lot of ways the first time that they've had to be open to really mind-changing foundational shifts in how they do things on the baseball side. So last question. If they're not open to mind-changing, you know, foundational shifts and they just go out and hire a general manager and maybe not the highest quality, maybe the cheapest, and a manager gets

hired after that. Are we basically doomed, you know, the comparisons aren't, you know, apples to apples because Snyder was actually a terrible person and, you know, there was no track record of success at any point with him. They had an eight-year run of being one of the best teams in baseball. But if they don't change their ways, are the nationals essentially as long as they own the team doomed to being run like a mid-de-smart? to small market team. I mean, this place could become the Pittsburgh Pirates in a really, you know, short amount of time. And think of it this way, Kevin.

Like, McKenzie Gore is at the same point in his service time clock that Juan Soto was when they traded him. And so a question that will be put to Mike DeBartolo is a really, really pushed for the Soto trade. And rightfully so, because he knew he wasn't going to sign here long term. And that's the only thing that's keeping that trade is the only thing. thing that's keeping the major league roster afloat right now with abrams and gore and and um james wood but the cycle that you talked about feels that way if they're actively having to think about trading mackenzie gore as a four plus service time player then you're going to get to 2000 28 and james wood is going to be a four plus player and are you talking about trading another superstar and

are you going to ever sign any of these guys to be what Ryan Zimmerman was by signing two extensions here? And what Steven Strassburg was signing two extensions here. I know the second was disastrous. But other than that, they haven't done it. And that also defines the franchise. So unless they find a way to run a modern Major League front office that, that can draft develop and, you know, not just superstars, but ancillary pieces. And therefore, revenue goes up and they can go out and spend on, it doesn't have to be on Juan Soto for 700 and, you know, whatever it was, 35 million.

But on real big league contributors, contributors, then they are resigned to being a small market team, even though D.C. is whatever it is, the 10th biggest media market in the country. I think it's bigger than that, but the point is well taken. All right, go. You're running to De Bartolo's press conference. I appreciate you doing this. Thanks. I'll talk to you soon. Thanks, Kevin.

Appreciate it. Barry's Ruluga, everybody from the Washington Post. Really nice of Barry to make time for me today because he was on his way to the introductory press conference for Mike DeBardo, the new interim GM. So, FYI, if any news, comes. out of that introductory press conference. The reason we didn't discuss it is because we recorded the interview prior to the press conference. It was the only time that Barry could do it. So I do appreciate him making time. By the way, I wanted to mention something real quickly before we get

to our final segment and our last guest of the day, Mike Ozanian from CNBC. I said something on the show yesterday to Tommy that I just said to Barry as well. And I wanted to add to it and clarify it just a bit. I compared the current Nat's ownership situation to what it was like under Dan for the football team. And I compared kind of the fan base's current thoughts of Nats ownership to what, you know, Skins fans thought of Snyder, you know, for a decade or so. And that is that as long as they own the team, we're probably not going to win anything, unless there's some sort of an epiphany, you know, as Barry suggested, you know, a major mind shift in, hey, we don't know what we don't know.

We're not good at this. We're going to hire somebody to come in. We're going to give that person total autonomy. We're going to get out of their way and we're going to let them build the organization the right way. We knew that that was never going to happen with Dan because he thought things were fine. He was too incompetent to realize that it was the work. organization in sports. And then, you know, even if he had any sort of sense that things needed to improve, he was too arrogant to admit that he himself was the problem. You know, right now,

the way Nat's fans feel about current ownership is not totally dissimilar to the way that, you know, Skins fans felt about Snyder for a long period of time. But there are major differences between Nats ownership, you know, since the team moved here in 2005, and Dan's ownership. For starters, the Nats have actually won. For eight years, they were one of the best teams in baseball. They won it all in 2019, and they were a consistent postseason presence. Dan Snyder never sniffed winning at any point. There was nothing at any point resembling what the Nats did over that eight-year period.

not to mention the fact that, look, beyond, you know, the incompetence of Dan Snyder and even the incompetence of the learners in running the team, Dan was a bad guy. You know, he had investigations into, you know, the way he was treating people in the workplace, the way his people that he hired were treating people. There was harassment. There was bullying. I'm not saying that working for the learners has been, you know, the greatest thing ever. We've heard that people have left that organization and that it's not been the best place to work, but for different reasons.

And so there are major differences in, you know, the overall personality of the learner family and then Snyder. But the situations aren't that dissimilar in that there isn't a lot of hope as long as they own the team. The other thing, too, I just want to point out, is that, you know, in baseball, because there isn't a cap, and you've got these big spending teams, three of which reside in their own division, the Mets, Phillies, and Braves, and then in the actual National League, you've got the Dodgers, you've got the Cubs, the Giants, you've got, you know, big spending teams. it's even harder to kind of have that, you know, oddball season. You know, the NFL's designed for even the worst of organizations to have a 10 and 6 record, 10 and 7 record and make the playoffs and maybe even win a game or two. Baseball's not designed for that. Baseball's designed for, as Tommy said yesterday, if you're not going to be one of those big spenders, you better be really good at everything else.

Sure, the Nats could end up, you know, making the playoffs one year with an 85 and 77 record. And maybe it's because the Mets had injuries and the Braves had injuries and the Phillies fell apart and the Dodgers, you know, had an off year, whatever it is. And maybe they even win a series. But it's actually harder to have one of those outlier seasons in baseball than it is. in football. So the situation, as long as they own the team and they don't change, in some ways, is even more bleak than it was even in the worst of days as an NFL fan of the team that plays here. All right. Mike Ozanian from CNBC, he put together a list that they put out today that's interesting. It's not the value of sports teams. It's the values, the top 20

values of sports empires. We'll talk about that with him next after these words from a few of our sponsors. If you want to bet on sports, my recommendation is MyBooky. Go to MyBooky.com. Use my promo code Kevin D.C. And MyBooky will give you a cash bonus on your initial deposit. Week 1 NFL lines. They've been up for a while at MyBooky. Washington currently, a six and a half point favorite over the New York Giants. The total is 46 in week number one. Week number two, their Thursday night game at Lambo against Green Bay, that game is available at mybooky.orgie.ag, and the Packers are one and a half point favorites

over Washington and week two with the total at 48 and a half. You can find all of your NFL week one and week two numbers, all of your NFL futures and prop bet opportunities for the 2025 season at my bookie.ag. Use my promo code, Kevin, DC. Joining me right now is Mike Ozanian. Mike is a sports business reporter for CNBC. We had Mike on the show multiple times during this. sale process of our football team during that year and a half. And he was always incredibly helpful and interesting. And I read what Mike put together with CNBC this morning, ranking

sports empires, the top 20 in the world for the year 2025. And I thought this was an interesting topic for a number of reasons. And Mike joins us right now. First of all, before we get to some of these individual, you know, empires, two of which, by the way, are run by two local sports owners here in D.C. This is, right, not a list about the wealthiest of owners, but the richest portfolios of sports teams owned. Just explain what this list is even beyond that, and certainly add to that if I didn't get it right. No, Kevin, you got it exactly. right. What this list does, it takes those individuals or companies, and we analyze and value the sports portfolio of all their teams and sports-related businesses. To qualify for the list,

though, you have to be a controlling owner of at least one sports team worth a billion dollars or more. So, for example, TKO Holdings, which is the publicly traded vehicle for which WWE and UFC, the mixed Mark Shlarts Enterprise trade on the stock exchange, is not eligible for the list, even though it has a valuation above $15 billion. That's because there's no sports team involved. So the reason why we looked at this and have done this at C.E. NBC is because over the last few years, there's been a trend of people owning more than one sports team, as well as a lot of different types of sports assets that they can utilize with their sports team holdings. Those sports team properties could be things like a regional sports

network, which is the case with the Yankee Global Enterprises and the Yes Network, or Ted Leonsis, and his regional sports network. It could be something like Legends, which is the stadium hospitality and premium seating business that Jerry Jones owns a stake in and the New York Yankees own a stake in. And this trend is happening because when I talk to sports team owner, and those involved with these empires, they say there's tremendous scale, meaning you can cross-market and sell sponsorship for different teams. You know, we just saw, for example, the WNBA announced three new franchises over the next couple of years.

Those are being taken in by teams that already own NBA teams and have operating rights. to their arenas so they can maximize the revenue streams there. And when you look at sales, minority interest sales, of sports empires over the last several months, you could see the very high valuation. So, for example, Stephen Ross sold a minority stake in a bundle of assets that included the Dolphins, Hard Rock Cafe, and the... uh... f one race that he has down there every year uh...

you also had a minority stake sale in monumental sports and entertainment that went for a very high valuation and just the other day rogers which owned about thirty seven percent of maple leaf sports and entertainment with jones the maple leaf the the raptors the building toronto fc which is the m l s team uh... they just

just bought out BCE, which owned about 37% of Maple Leaf Sports Entertainment. So Rogers is going to have the ability to use their controlling ownership of that to put it on TV, to market, all of that stuff. And this is the way the sports world is really evolving right now. Yeah, interesting. And, you know, when you said about the cross-marketing opportunities, for each of, you know, the Empire's portfolio companies or portfolio teams, actually, although they're not all teams. Some of them are, you know, associated businesses, as you described. But I thought about, you know, the roll-up days.

I'm sure you're very familiar with, you know, the rolling up of, you know, kind of fragmented businesses into one big company where not only did you get those marketing economies of scale, but you got a lot of. of that, you know, HR and accounting and a lot of these, you know, functions that are necessary within a company all centralized to gain huge economies of scale. So I would imagine that that's a big part of it as well, you know, in sort of the gains, the positives that emerge from owning multiple, you know, sports properties because they're similar businesses. Yeah, no, you're exactly right you know and and when you think about it right you look at the

people that have been increasingly investing in sports teams and sports properties especially now that private equity has been getting involved the last few years these guys know all about what you're talking about they've been doing that by investing in all their other businesses over the years so you know I could triple the value of my sports portfolio by you know adding multiple teams by adding investments in, you know, like the Kraft family, they have an analytics business, which is immensely popular and big. You know, there's AEG, which has AXS, a huge sports ticketing business.

They can get that economy to scale that you're talking about because I'm tripling the size of my portfolio, but I'm not tripling the size of my accounting department or human resources department or, you know, marketing department. Right. Yeah. Do you think, you know, you talked about Stephen Ross, do you think that in the future we will see sales of empires, you know, multiple holdings of, you know, Harris, Blitzer, Sports and Entertainment, or Fenway versus just one-off purchases of teams or individual, you know, entities within the empire or within the portfolio? you? I think that's possible, but I think what we're going to see first over the next several years is the folks who own these empires selling small pieces of them, you know, 5%, 10%, things

like that. So, you know, for instance, let's take a look at Mark Walter, right? So, you know, he came in several years ago and with his group and bought the Dodgers, right? And then after that, he brought in a lot of minority investors buying small pieces. You know, that that also gives you capital. He built up the brand. He got a winning team. Then he brings in minority investors who want to be part of that winning brand and winning team, especially at a market like L.A.

You know, now he's a minority investor in the L.A. Lakers, but he's got an agreement from Jeannie Boss to buy out her controlling stake in it. So he's going to be suddenly, you know, one of the bigger sports empires when this deal closes because besides the Dodgers and the Lakers, he's an investor with Todd Bowley in Chelsea FC. He's an investor in women's ice hockey league. You know, he's got an F1 investment. So, you know, he's building up his empire gradually. and then he can go to minority investors say, hey, how would you like a piece of the tremendous scale in the economies that I've built up and you don't got to go in and buy a piece here, a piece here and piece here, just buy a piece of my holding company and you're in.

Yeah, that makes sense. By the way, just on Mark Walter and the Lakers sale, how did that end up being a $10 billion valuation, Mike? You know what? Nobody knows, but I will tell you this. He had a right at first refusal, and, you know, I don't know if the Junie Boston and her sibling said, we're going to go to market your first choice, and he said, what do I have to offer to get this team? And she threw out a number, and he said, okay. But remember, it is an impressive number. And, you know, you and I always like to talk valuations, right? So this comes out to like 18 or 19 times revenue, which is an insane multiple of revenue.

But he's not buying the whole thing, right? He already owns 26, 27 percent. And she's going to maintain after the deal another 15 or 18 percent. So in terms of like his cash payment, it's not like he's laying out $10 billion, you know? And also, I have to tell you, you know, I got to be honest, right? When he bought the Dodgers, I was one of those, you know, I said, $2 billion for the Dodgers. I said, that's crazy. You know, I was one of those, you know, but looking back at it, all these years later,

they're obviously worth way more than that right now. And he also has a unique advantage. We have to say, so, you know, to your point, why say $10 billion? You know, why do that? Well, if he can do that and cut off competition, he has great access to capital. He has ties with Guggenheim, which he used to help him get the Dodgers, financing there. There's a lot of hedge fund money, insurance money. And now he recently started a new financial vehicle called TWG Global, which has also raised a lot of capital that's being put into sports.

So he's very good at, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything nefarious or wrong. with this, but he's very good at raising other people's money and using that to get his interest in sports teams. It's very smart. I have a couple of questions related to two of the groups on your list,

and I'll just let everybody know. Kronkies number one, the Jones family, Jerry Jones is number two, and then Harris, Blitzer Sports and Entertainment. That's Josh Harris, you know, the managing partner of a 20-plus limited partner group that owns our

football team along with his partner, David Blitzer, their third on the list, and monumental sports and entertainment, Ted Leonis being the founder, owner, chairman, and managing partner is 19th on this list. I've suggested recently, and I just want to know if you think I'm completely off my rocker. So Washington's in a contract negotiation with their star wide receiver, Terry McLaren. and it will be the first major contract in terms of cash outlay that they've done since acquiring the team. You know, a lot of one-year deals last year. The biggest deal so far in Free Agency this year was, you know, basically $30 million guaranteed over three years. This is going to be a $60, $80 million guaranteed deal.

And I've suggested recently they paid $6 billion for the team. less than two years ago, which they needed 20 plus limiteds to get done. They've put in approximately 100 million into the existing stadium just to bring it up to code so people don't get water dumped on them or have railings fall down. And they're about to, we think, end up being on the hook for 2.7 billion in what will be the new stadium on the RFK site in D.C., you know, hopefully that gets done here shortly. And I suggested that the McLaurin conversation, and by the way, they're going to have to pay Jayden Daniels an all-time contract in two years. It'll be the largest contract ever done in the

history of the league, more likely than not if he stays healthy, that they could be, as it relates to this football team on a P&L basis, cash strapped. Is that nuts? I would suspect that given that you do have the cap, that cash strap would be probably, you know, I think not something, not that severe. I don't think so because I think that, look, they're going to be getting more money every year from the national treaty deal. I think that's going to help them. I think one of the questions will be also is you mentioned the new stadium. Like they finally got the arena situation squared away with the Sixers, right? So they're just basically going to get a much better lease.

Right. He walked away from the downtown thing. Yeah. And to be fair, you know, and Ted Leonas went through the same thing. I mean, the politics, and I'm not taking size like of, you know, should. private money, should it be all be private money, or what, what, if any, should be the public contribution? All that aside, the politics down there for new stadiums is really tough, either way to look at it. So I think that one thing that's possible, and I'm saying this is my idea,

I just want to make it clear and I don't speak to them, but you could also have a situation where you bring in new investors for the state football stadium. So, you know, the A's in baseball, the athletics, have done that with their new stadium that's going to be built in Las Vegas. So there are ways to sort of separate the various assets from a legal standpoint. So, for example, you could set up something called New Stadium Co. And that could be something where there are individuals, perhaps, that are not owners of the Washington Commanders football franchise that are investors in the new stadium. You know, I just think, I agree with the one thing.

I mean, if the main point is this isn't going to be easy, yeah, it isn't. And if you talk about guaranteed contracts, as you know, the amount that you're not paying out in the current year, the future years, you have to put Nescro. Exactly. So you've got to put money there, which is going to make it tough. But the other thing is he knew going in that he was going to need this new stadium. You know, I mean, in the back of his mind, the calculus was, okay, I'm paying $6 billion for the football team. I'm going to have to pump money into the current stadium to make it viable and also a lot of money, private money, into a new. stadium down the road. So I think all that was part of the calculus. And like I said, when you're in

this world of private equity like these guys are, they know how to raise money. The NFL does also allow, even though they have a $800 million or $850 million debt limit on the team, they do allow sections for stadiums. So there's also ways to borrow money and to be able to put that on the stadium too. So I don't know. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I think they'll come out of the spine. And most of all,

and it hurts me to say this as a New York Giants fan for, you know, 60 years. He is doing, you know, the Washington football franchise is a huge fan base. And territorially is one of the

larger ones in the NFL. So he's he's got a great franchise, you know, to build on and a brand that, you know, is on the mend from that perspective. But no, you know, I get your point. It's not going to be easy. Yeah. I know you got to run, but I got two more for you real quickly. Number one is this.

What's the, of the four major professional sports, which sport generates the highest margins? You know, football, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL are all about 20% or so on an Ibit-Dob margin. Baseball is much lower. And, you know, the reason for that, obviously, is that, you know, baseball has no cap. They have the luxury tax. Hockey has the hardest cap, the NHL. And then I would say following them is the NFL, then the NBA, and then baseball. The weird thing about baseball, though, is although they, I think their margins about 15% or 12 or something like that, you know, it's because of the no cap, it's really skewed.

So you have teams like, you know, the Mets like lost $300 million or something. Yeah. You know. But then you have some of the lowest revenue teams that because of revenue sharing and, you know, the formula they use and the fact that like the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Red Sox got to write these big checks to like Tampa and, you know, Kansas City and those teams, those teams actually will make money. Yeah. So it's kind of, it's kind of screwing. Well, you probably, you probably just answered my last question, which is. is, you know, we're going through, you know, a rough stretch for our baseball team here,

owned by the learners. And they had it for sale, you know, a year ago. They wanted $2 billion plus. You know, and you see the Lakers valued, and I understand that Mark Walter's not buying $10 billion worth of Lakers' stock. But, you know, the Nats can't even sell, they can't even sell a baseball franchise for $2 billion. And we've seen it. Artie Moreno pulled the sale.

of the Angels, you know, a year or two ago. And I guess you just answered the question. The no cap in baseball, does it depress valuations for teams? I think it depends on the franchise. I think what happened with the Nationals, the Nationals, I think they asked too much. I mean, they were out there. The learners were told, and I was told this by people who knew the deal, that they could sell the team for at least $2.5 billion.

So they came out asking way too much, way too much, especially at that time. The whole thing with Massen hadn't been settled. Right. So it was just too big a check to write for somebody to see. And there were interest people, but it was so frustrating at the time because the asking price was way too high.

And then we saw the Orioles sell for like a little over $1.7 billion. So you can see that two six, it was way, way, way too high. The Angels with Artie was different. They definitely had people that were going to pay a high price for that team. I think it was well over $2 billion. But he himself, what happened with Artie was he, you know, he was trying to get that new ballpark and trying to work something out with the city. And, you know, he wanted them to throw the city to throw in land.

was going to build like one of these, you know, mixed-use areas and all that. And he really, it really soured his stomach on terms of ownership because of the way he was portrayed in the press out there over that. And so he had a moment where he was fed up and he said, I'm out of here. And then at the last minute, after there were some people who had come, visited the ballpark, you know, he even walked around the locker room and wanted to buy it. And then he was like, you know what? He really changed his mind. It wasn't a question with him that he couldn't sell it.

He just had a change of heart. Did Snyder? That I know. Did Snyder get a good deal? I think he did. Yeah. I think he did. In the moment.

In the circumstances. Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. I absolutely think he did. Thanks for doing this. As always, hope you're well. At Mike O-Z-A-N-I-E-N-I.

I-A-N on X on Twitter. Appreciate it, and the story is a good read if you're interested in this stuff. CNBC's most valuable sports empires in 2025. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Kevin. Always enjoy it, pal. Interesting what he said about, you know, the Nats sale price. You know, he said $2.5 billion.

They were told they could get $2.5 billion. And then he said, you know, they were asking 2.6. You heard Barry in the conversation prior talk about that they did have an offer for $2.5 billion. But, you know, if they were told they could get $2.5 billion and they were looking for just, you know, any amount north of $2.5 billion, you know, it's been in their, you know, I think long history as business people that they're not going to take a dime less than what they think it's worth. So somebody may have gotten very close at $2.5 billion or somewhere around there, but not to the number that the learners were asking. I think we are in that period of time, unfortunately, where it's going to take, you know, a season where everything goes right for them and everything goes wrong for all of the big spending teams in the national.

league for them to make the postseason. It'll happen. We're going to live through another postseason series, but as long as they own the team, the odds will be stacked heavily against it, unless they completely change the way they do business with at least the baseball team that they own. All right, that is it for the day. Back tomorrow, everybody.