Does spending more now to renegotiate their tv rights deal make sense?

[caulfield12]

Miami currently has the worst local TV deal in all of baseball, paying them $13-18MM annually (the Dodgers’ deal, in contrast, pays them $334MM per year, Gaines writes). Gaines notes that having a legitimate superstar on the team will increase the value of the new TV deal. Gaines speculates that negotiations could begin in 2016 as there appears to be some kind of opt-out on the current contract, which runs through 2020. Indeed, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports tweets that they are aiming for a new TV deal to begin in 2017 — which, perhaps not coincidentally, aligns with the first significant spike in Stanton’s salary.

 

www.mlbtraderumors.com

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/giancarlo-s...ontract-2014-11

 

In a full column, Rosenthal points out that the Rangers, Tigers and Angels each spent significant money prior to signing their new TV deals so they had a more attractive product in place for negotiations.

 

For example, the Mariners just upped their contract to $118 million per year, partially explaining the investment in Cano/King Felix and some of the other big/ger names they're being connected with so far this off-season like Nelson Cruz and Yoenis Cespedes (just changed to Jay Z's sports rep agency, obviously a Cano connection there). And the Mariners have rebounded all the way up to 7th in the tv households chart.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/stanton...es-sense-111914

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-ya...ratings-2014-10

 

 

If you look at the attached chart, the White Sox were probably 25th (there are no ratings for the Dodgers and Blue Jays, and I assumed the Sox were also ahead of the Astros), with 39,000 households per game. Interestingly, the Cubs were only 2 spots ahead with 54,000.

 

The Tigers were 2nd (159,000). Amazingly, the Indians were 10th at 99,000 per game in a "mediocre" season. The Royals and Twins were middle of the pack, which is quite resilient for the Twins' organization. Even though their fans are staying away (CLE and MIN), their local tv viewership is quite solid.

 

If the White Sox went out and got Maeda, Papelbon (for Danks?) OR another RH closer, Ethier/Crawford/Kemp and pieces (for Danks/Ramirez) OR LaRoche/Rasmus/Morse...you would argue THAT potential team wasn't TOO far off.

 

(It's also interesting in the Phil Rogers piece that he supposes Viciedo is going to be around in 2015).

Edited November 20, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/re...-trend-last.ece

 

“The TV deals are the single most important variable in how aggressive a team can be,” said Cubs president Theo Epstein, whose organization has positioned itself (not sure how the author thinks they've done anything but being forced to wait for the Comcast deal to run its course) to negotiate a new TV deal after 2019. “You can chart a team’s spending in certain offseasons based on the timing of their TV deal and how it big it was. It’s something fans are starting to become more aware of and track, but it’s really a driving force in the industry dynamic that goes unseen.”

 

(A month ago, Epstein told season-ticket holders that the next TV contract will be “the magic bullet, the paradigm-shifter.”)

[LDF]

Miami currently has the worst local TV deal in all of baseball, paying them $13-18MM annually (the Dodgers’ deal, in contrast, pays them $334MM per year, Gaines writes). Gaines notes that having a legitimate superstar on the team will increase the value of the new TV deal. Gaines speculates that negotiations could begin in 2016 as there appears to be some kind of opt-out on the current contract, which runs through 2020. Indeed, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports tweets that they are aiming for a new TV deal to begin in 2017 — which, perhaps not coincidentally, aligns with the first significant spike in Stanton’s salary.

 

www.mlbtraderumors.com

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/giancarlo-s...ontract-2014-11

 

In a full column, Rosenthal points out that the Rangers, Tigers and Angels each spent significant money prior to signing their new TV deals so they had a more attractive product in place for negotiations.

 

For example, the Mariners just upped their contract to $118 million per year, partially explaining the investment in Cano/King Felix and some of the other big/ger names they're being connected with so far this off-season like Nelson Cruz and Yoenis Cespedes (just changed to Jay Z's sports rep agency, obviously a Cano connection there). And the Mariners have rebounded all the way up to 7th in the tv households chart.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/stanton...es-sense-111914

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-ya...ratings-2014-10

 

 

If you look at the attached chart, the White Sox were probably 25th (there are no ratings for the Dodgers and Blue Jays, and I assumed the Sox were also ahead of the Astros), with 39,000 households per game. Interestingly, the Cubs were only 2 spots ahead with 54,000.

 

The Tigers were 2nd (159,000). Amazingly, the Indians were 10th at 99,000 per game in a "mediocre" season. The Royals and Twins were middle of the pack, which is quite resilient for the Twins' organization. Even though their fans are staying away (CLE and MIN), their local tv viewership is quite solid.

 

If the White Sox went out and got Maeda, Papelbon (for Danks?) OR another RH closer, Ethier/Crawford/Kemp and pieces (for Danks/Ramirez) OR LaRoche/Rasmus/Morse...you would argue THAT potential team wasn't TOO far off.

 

(It's also interesting in the Phil Rogers piece that he supposes Viciedo is going to be around in 2015).

 

Sox fans are not like the chi blacks hawks fan, esp in this era. the sox

fans will not be stratified with a token signing and have the Sox brass say,

look here we went out and paid X$X$ amount for a player. come and buy

your season tickets.

 

we, the fans may not have the resources to see all the rpts, but we as fans

demand that the sox field a team. we as fans are an extremely tough sell.

 

now the northsiders still have some blind loyalty but even then it appeard to

be waning.

 

so in any tv deal, they the sox will need to again field, the same team to

see those numbers increase. esp for those who lives outside chi, like me.

 

[MDWhiteSoxFan]

Let's get real the President of the United State of America is one of us... Let's just take some of the federal taxes collected each year and pump that into our payroll.

[caulfield12]

Uh-oh, we're already heading for the Filibuster section two weeks after the midterms.

 

 

Barring any governmental assistance, it's going to take private dollars to return to relevance again.

[caulfield12]

Some people in South Florida (and some people in my inbox) believe that Loria is setting up a future sale of the Marlins. Stanton's backloaded deal helps Loria and the Marlins make money in the immediate future. And starting next year, Loria could sell the team without having to give any of the profits back to the city of Miami and Miami-Dade County. Had he sold in 2009, for instance, 18 percent of the profits would have gone to the government. Some fans theorize that Loria could enjoy the cheaper years of Stanton, then sell the team before Stanton's opt-out date and not care about what happens to the Marlins and/or Stanton after that.

 

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-180526965.html

[hi8is]

Let's get real the President of the United State of America is one of us... Let's just take some of the federal taxes collected each year and pump that into our payroll.

You're funny. Post more.

Oh, and welcome. May we share many poops together.

[LDF]

Some people in South Florida (and some people in my inbox) believe that Loria is setting up a future sale of the Marlins. Stanton's backloaded deal helps Loria and the Marlins make money in the immediate future. And starting next year, Loria could sell the team without having to give any of the profits back to the city of Miami and Miami-Dade County. Had he sold in 2009, for instance, 18 percent of the profits would have gone to the government. Some fans theorize that Loria could enjoy the cheaper years of Stanton, then sell the team before Stanton's opt-out date and not care about what happens to the Marlins and/or Stanton after that.

 

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-180526965.html

 

this make sense. I was wondering why Loria is spending money all of a sudden.

[ewokpelts]

Miami currently has the worst local TV deal in all of baseball, paying them $13-18MM annually (the Dodgers’ deal, in contrast, pays them $334MM per year, Gaines writes). Gaines notes that having a legitimate superstar on the team will increase the value of the new TV deal. Gaines speculates that negotiations could begin in 2016 as there appears to be some kind of opt-out on the current contract, which runs through 2020. Indeed, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports tweets that they are aiming for a new TV deal to begin in 2017 — which, perhaps not coincidentally, aligns with the first significant spike in Stanton’s salary.

 

www.mlbtraderumors.com

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/giancarlo-s...ontract-2014-11

 

In a full column, Rosenthal points out that the Rangers, Tigers and Angels each spent significant money prior to signing their new TV deals so they had a more attractive product in place for negotiations.

 

For example, the Mariners just upped their contract to $118 million per year, partially explaining the investment in Cano/King Felix and some of the other big/ger names they're being connected with so far this off-season like Nelson Cruz and Yoenis Cespedes (just changed to Jay Z's sports rep agency, obviously a Cano connection there). And the Mariners have rebounded all the way up to 7th in the tv households chart.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/stanton...es-sense-111914

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-ya...ratings-2014-10

 

 

If you look at the attached chart, the White Sox were probably 25th (there are no ratings for the Dodgers and Blue Jays, and I assumed the Sox were also ahead of the Astros), with 39,000 households per game. Interestingly, the Cubs were only 2 spots ahead with 54,000.

 

The Tigers were 2nd (159,000). Amazingly, the Indians were 10th at 99,000 per game in a "mediocre" season. The Royals and Twins were middle of the pack, which is quite resilient for the Twins' organization. Even though their fans are staying away (CLE and MIN), their local tv viewership is quite solid.

 

If the White Sox went out and got Maeda, Papelbon (for Danks?) OR another RH closer, Ethier/Crawford/Kemp and pieces (for Danks/Ramirez) OR LaRoche/Rasmus/Morse...you would argue THAT potential team wasn't TOO far off.

 

(It's also interesting in the Phil Rogers piece that he supposes Viciedo is going to be around in 2015).

The sox with the current ownership won't play a shell game like that. They KNOW they will receive a huge increase in tv money in 2019. And they have plenty of payroll flexibility from now til then.

If anything, the sox may try to get an extension of the current deal(which is an exact copy of the previous fox sports/cablevision deal that they opted out of in 2004).

 

The sox(and the bulls) control half of the csn-chicago partnership, and the hawks are not likely to follow the cubs on a fool's crusade to another channel. i say that because the hawks share teh united center with the bulls, and rocky is not only on the bulls board, he considers jerry a mentor and friend.

 

My prediction is that the csn-chicago coalition will be sox.hawks/bulls starting in 2019, and cubs trying to get a new staiton off the ground. being on csn has a major advantage. it is already on the vast majority go chicago cable/satellite homes. Part of jerry's conditions for the channel were that comcast not get greedy on carriage fees. carriage fees are the reason why houston and la have a new rsn and no one watching.

 

[ewokpelts]

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/re...-trend-last.ece

 

“The TV deals are the single most important variable in how aggressive a team can be,” said Cubs president Theo Epstein, whose organization has positioned itself (not sure how the author thinks they've done anything but being forced to wait for the Comcast deal to run its course) to negotiate a new TV deal after 2019. “You can chart a team’s spending in certain offseasons based on the timing of their TV deal and how it big it was. It’s something fans are starting to become more aware of and track, but it’s really a driving force in the industry dynamic that goes unseen.”

 

(A month ago, Epstein told season-ticket holders that the next TV contract will be “the magic bullet, the paradigm-shifter.”)

so now "next year" is 2019 at best. i doubt theo is even employed by the cubs then.

 

[LDF]

 

the Dodgers got a great freaking TV deal.

[Balta1701]

the Dodgers got a great freaking TV deal.

And the cable company is losing huge on it.

[bmags]

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/re...-trend-last.ece

 

“The TV deals are the single most important variable in how aggressive a team can be,” said Cubs president Theo Epstein, whose organization has positioned itself (not sure how the author thinks they've done anything but being forced to wait for the Comcast deal to run its course) to negotiate a new TV deal after 2019. “You can chart a team’s spending in certain offseasons based on the timing of their TV deal and how it big it was. It’s something fans are starting to become more aware of and track, but it’s really a driving force in the industry dynamic that goes unseen.”

 

(A month ago, Epstein told season-ticket holders that the next TV contract will be “the magic bullet, the paradigm-shifter.”)