Huge TV deal for Dodgers

[LITTLE NELL]

7 billion, 25 year deal from Time Warner. Before they open the gates they will get $280,000,000 a year from Time Warner. How can you compete with that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...llion/1870609/

[jamokes]

Baseball has to do something to even everything out. They won't, so the poorer teams will get much more poorer.

[roylestillman]

Does anybody know how the Sox deal works now. I know that CSN is owned by the Bulls, Cubs, and Sox along with Comcast, but I have no idea what kind of revenue they are getting out of the deal. I thought i read that the teams got $250,000 per game, which is nothing compared to the recent deals. Also, is there an expiration date on this deal?

[amsteel]

BOLD PREDICTION: this deal will usher in the era of some form of a la carte TV packages.

[WhiteSox5187]

Originally Posted by amsteel

BOLD PREDICTION: this deal will usher in the era of some form of a la carte TV packages.

There was an article in the NY Times that predicted that. Cable companies charge a lot of money for these channels that not everyone watches (100,000 people watching a Dodgers game is great ratings for a team) and even cable executives are saying that the current sports deals will be the thing that brings in a la carte packages.

[Lip Man 1]

This and that:

Apparently MLB is investigating some of the terms of this deal. The Dodgers apparently have formed a "dummy" company to produce the games so that they don't have to pay as much in revenue sharing money. The story said the plan was to pay this dummy company money for producing the games, lowering the Dodgers income but in reality the Dodgers OWN the dummy company.

Same **** the Braves pulled off years ago claiming they weren't getting a lot for their TV rights but that's because they deliberately sold the rights to the station that had close ties with them and that was willing to share that money back with them. (nudge, nudge...wink, wink...SAY no more!)

Yep the owners are losing money.

Regarding a la cart, for what it's worth, from my interview with Bob Grim, the director of broadcast operations with the Sox:

ML: One final area to discuss regarding satellite coverage of baseball. A few years ago, I read about a lawsuit filed by some Cleveland Browns fans living in Florida against the NFL and DirecTV over their Sunday Ticket package. Now I don’t know if said lawsuit was dismissed or if it’s still going through the legal process, but what those fans were suing over was the fact that they had to pay for the entire package even though the only team they wanted to watch was the Browns. Do you think there will be a time where if a Sox fan living in New Mexico for example, just wanted to get the Sox games, they could?

BG: “I think satellite companies would be a la carted to death if something like that happened so they probably won’t do it. And today with so many options I think most fans can probably find the game they want to see somewhere. In this area there was a lot of controversy over the cable companies not picking up the Big Ten Network but really there wasn’t a lot of backlash with it because fans were able to find most of those games somewhere.”

Lip

[soxfanreggie]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

7 billion, 25 year deal from Time Warner. Before they open the gates they will get $280,000,000 a year from Time Warner. How can you compete with that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...llion/1870609/

Deals like this are how the Dodgers, Angels, and Rangers financed their spending sprees.

[ComiskeyBrewer]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

7 billion, 25 year deal from Time Warner. Before they open the gates they will get $280,000,000 a year from Time Warner. How can you compete with that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...llion/1870609/

That's insane. I doubt the Brewers entire current TV deal is worth that much.

[Lip Man 1]

It's not.

Lip

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by jamokes

Baseball has to do something to even everything out. They won't, so the poorer teams will get much more poorer.

The problem is the poorer teams . A lot of them have the money to field competitive teams but the owner chooses to pocket the profits.

[Hitmen77]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

The problem is the poorer teams . A lot of them have the money to field competitive teams but the owner chooses to pocket the profits.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, information has come out in recent years showing that "poor" teams like Pittsburgh have indeed made a profit. And of course, there are terrible owners like Loria in Miami.

But, I just find it too much of a coincidence that all the "cheap" teams that simply refuse to spend money on MLB talent also happen to be all the small market teams while, the bigger the market, the more "willing" (incredibly)teams are to spend on a winner.

No, a big payroll doesn't guarantee postseason success (see the Cubs and Mets), but over all, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Rangers, etc and spend more and more on astronomical contracts and it's simply more and more likely that they'll make the playoffs over and over and not have to go too many years in between postseason appearances. Smaller market teams can compete if they develop talent from within just right, but most often they see they're big stars say goodbye once they hit free-agency.

The Twins bucked that trend by keeping Mauer and signing him to a huge long-term contract. But, now they seem to be hamstrung somewhat by that deal while Mauer seems to be heading toward the downward side of his career. If that was the Yankees, they could absorb that contract and still buy a few all-stars to fill up holes in their lineup. Does that make the Twins ownership one of the "cheapskate" owners while making the Yankees ownership one that puts victories over profit?

[mahagga73]

Originally Posted by Hitmen77

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, information has come out in recent years showing that "poor" teams like Pittsburgh have indeed made a profit. And of course, there are terrible owners like Loria in Miami.

But, I just find it too much of a coincidence that all the "cheap" teams that simply refuse to spend money on MLB talent also happen to be all the small market teams while, the bigger the market, the more "willing" (incredibly)teams are to spend on a winner.

No, a big payroll doesn't guarantee postseason success (see the Cubs and Mets), but over all, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Rangers, etc and spend more and more on astronomical contracts and it's simply more and more likely that they'll make the playoffs over and over and not have to go too many years in between postseason appearances. Smaller market teams can compete if they develop talent from within just right, but most often they see they're big stars say goodbye once they hit free-agency.

The Twins bucked that trend by keeping Mauer and signing him to a huge long-term contract. But, now they seem to be hamstrung somewhat by that deal while Mauer seems to be heading toward the downward side of his career. If that was the Yankees, they could absorb that contract and still buy a few all-stars to fill up holes in their lineup. Does that make the Twins ownership one of the "cheapskate" owners while making the Yankees ownership one that puts victories over profit?

Yeah you have a point. It is extremely unlikely any organization is going to be brilliant enough or lucky enough to keep being smarter than everyone else and stockpiling prospects for trade or to replace free agents. Most will experience a dropoff sooner or later, the Twins look like they have ran out of luck with that lately. A few trades that netted them nothing are killing them . Farm isn't as potent as it was. The Yankees and Red Sox, Dodgers, etc. just plug in holes by overspending. Therefore they can be consistently more competitive over time even if their farm system sucks. But Bud Selig will brag about how many different teams have been in the playoffs over the years or won the series. There needs to be a soft cap I think to combat cheap owners and make life harder for the big market teams , similar to what the NHL has had lately.