PDA

View Full Version : Angels' Pujols Signing Explained


Lip Man 1
12-16-2011, 11:24 PM
In S.I. this week (Tebow on cover).

Says it all came about because of the TV money the Angels will be getting from Fox Sports West.

Story says Fox panicked when they lost the Lakers to Time Warner Cable and the fact that the Dodgers might jump to that company as well.

The Angels will get an average of 150 million dollars a season just from the TV deal for the next 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think about that one for a second.

If the organization just spends the TV money on player salary, not a dime more, they'd still have one of the highest payrolls in baseball.

Story says the team payroll is expected to rise to the 180 million dollar tax threshold level.

It's all about the TV revenues boys and girls. The Yankees and Red Sox get astronomical TV money. The Rangers are getting 80 million a season (including upfront money for signing the deal) with Fox Sports Southwest starting in 2015.

Looks like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Rangers are going to be buying four out of the five possible A.L. playoff spots for the future. They won't all get in every year but I'd wager they claim four of the five spots 70% of the time.

Wonder what the Sox are getting for their TV rights and if somehow they can leverage a new deal to get them more income...looks like they are going to need it. (Especially if Selig's idea of radical realignment goes through and the Sox are no longer in a mediocre division...)

Lip

DumpJerry
12-16-2011, 11:31 PM
This was discussed on the radio when Pujols was signed. I was thinking that while it is nice the White Sox own a share of Comcast Sportsnet, it kinda screws them out of being able to negotiate a billion dollar TV deal for themselves.

TommyGavinFloyd
12-17-2011, 02:13 AM
I'm pretty sure I saw Fenway mention on here recently that the Sox get something like $450,000 per game on CSN and less for games on WGN/WCIU.

Steelrod
12-17-2011, 04:08 AM
Wonder what the Sox are getting for their TV rights and if somehow they can leverage a new deal to get them more income...looks like they are going to need it. (Especially if Selig's idea of radical realignment goes through and the Sox are no longer in a mediocre division...)

Lip

Don't it depend upon how long the current contract goes for. Or do you recommend them breaching their current contract in order to sign a new one?

getonbckthr
12-17-2011, 11:57 AM
I've never been a fan of a salary cap until I read this. This is a serious issue. How is it fair to an Oakland A's team who could win the next 5 World Series' and wouldn't get close to half that amount in a TV deal. Instead the Angels get it not because of anything they did but because the Lakers left the network? Thats bull ****!

Fenway
12-17-2011, 12:34 PM
Who is advising JR on television and radio contracts is totally clueless on how TV works in the 21st century.

When the 4 teams involved with FOX Sports Chicago decided they had had enough of Charles Dolan and decided to form their own channel, JR made a colossal blunder.

JR by having control of 2 teams (Bulls and White Sox) had year round programming. The Blackhawks then would have had to decide if they wanted in with a Sox owned channel or one run by the Cubs.

Just having one sports channel in a market the size of Chicago makes for a lackluster channel and too many conflicts for the main channel.

It is a given Ricketts will start his own channel the first second he can do so and most likely the Hawks follow with the Cubs.

However - I do see the problem a White Sox channel would get downstate and in Indiana and Iowa. Cable companies might balk at paying for a second Chicago station outside of Chicagoland. CSN is an easy sell because they have everybody (except the Bears who do not have local TV)

The Dodgers are going to do quite nicely when they next contract is settled as Time-Warner (Lakers channel) will try to get summer programming.

One of the main reasons that Portland, Oregon most likely will never get a MLB team is that the Mariners get a huge amount of revenue from Oregon. The Seattle TV contract is one of the highest.

Las Vegas will not be considered as they don't have any region outside of Clark County. The best a Nevada RSN could hope for is sharing Salt Lake City with Denver for baseball.

From a pure TV standpoint only the Carolinas offer enough TV homes to make it work. Atlanta would scream but still have enough to do fine.

Lip Man 1
12-17-2011, 01:44 PM
My interview with Bob Grim touches upon a "Sox / Bulls / Hawks only" channel and the answer is simply that it probably won't work...there is simply not enough programming to fill 24 hours a day / 7 days a week / 365 days a year.

And the Cubs have the exact same issue since the material WGN had on them from the 1950's and early 1960's was thrown out same as the Sox stuff they had:

---------------------------------------------------

ML: Is there any chance of the Sox pulling the games off WCIU in the future and moving them somewhere else?

BG: “Mark that’s part of the issue, there are no other options. When we put this together a few years ago, WGN went to every other TV station in the market and asked if they would be interested in being a part of it and the only one who said yes was WCIU.”

“And that doesn’t mean that the other stations don’t like the Sox, it’s a matter of business. A network station for example, gets their programming free from ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox. They sell the advertising and get the profit. To carry the Sox they’d have to bump that programming and to be a part of the Sox Network they have to pay us a fee, so it’s just not practical for them.”

ML: Well that’s been an issue since the Sox originally left WGN before the start of the 1968 season. The Chicago market, unlike New York or Los Angeles for example, just doesn’t have and never had, the number of independent stations that had the flexibility to do something like show a lot of ballgames in prime time. I mean WLS for example isn’t going to take off their prime time fall shows in September to show White Sox games.

BG: “That’s exactly correct. What we hope happens, we’re watching it, is the situation at WGN after the Tribune Company sells them. It’s possible the CW Network just goes away or new ownership wants to go back to the way things used to be at that station, namely showing a lot of games from all sports. We’ve talked to WGN about picking up more Sox games and on nights other than Saturday, but they only have a certain number of times they can bump the CW Network throughout the year so right now they just don’t have the ability to take on more games.

ML: Have you thought about starting a regional type network for example like the St. Louis Cardinals have?

BG: “The issue there is that a lot of the area cable operations just don’t want to take on a channel that’s just going to show ballgames especially if they have to charge a premium rate for it.”

“And the issue we have with a regional radio network is that a lot of the “mom and pop” stations that used to be around and aired Sox games in the past just don’t exist anymore. They’ve all been bought up by national corporations and they simply program via satellite from Dallas or Chicago or someplace. The stations simply don’t want to have to pay someone even though it’s probably not a lot, to run the board and insert commercials between innings and such.”

ML: Well taking it a step further have the Sox ever had any discussions about starting their own TV network a la the Yankees YES Network? I mean Jerry Reinsdorf owns the Sox, he owns the Bulls and he has a good relationship with the Wirtz Family, they both built the United Center. That gives you three major sports and you don’t have to play second fiddle to the Cubs anymore.

BG: “I’ve never personally been involved in any discussions like that but I think it probably has been talked about. Even with those three teams that you mentioned Mark, we’d still have an awful lot of time to fill. You’re talking about 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

“Right now to be honest the Sox simply don’t have the amount of video, classic games and stuff that could be used to do something like that. We’re getting closer though, major league baseball now requires all teams to tape every game and send the copy to New York where they archive it for us. So as time goes on we’ll be getting more and more material that we could use if something like this happens but now unlike the Yankees, we just don’t have material from the 20’s or 30’s that we could use say as a documentary to help fill time. When Jerry and his group took over in January 1981, they looked and any material that the Sox may have had was gone. No one knows where it went or who got it.”

Lip

Fenway
12-17-2011, 02:38 PM
My interview with Bob Grim touches upon a "Sox / Bulls / Hawks only" channel and the answer is simply that it probably won't work...there is simply not enough programming to fill 24 hours a day / 7 days a week / 365 days a year.



YES Network seems to handle the problem - they have just the Nets in winter and a lot of fill in programs.

http://web.yesnetwork.com/schedule/index.jsp?ymd=20111217

Yankees have very little non-network games from WPIX pre-1977 as well as Tribune erased everything in NY too.

White Sox/Cubs and Orioles/Nats are the only teams that share a channel * - LA the 2 FS stations are split FS/West-FS Prime Ticket - Bay Area has 2 separate CSN channels - NY has YES and SNY - * only in Baltimore/Wash where MASN carries 2 teams but they have MASN and MASN2 BUT MASN has a dedicated second channel at all times. (and has no winter games save college as hockey and baseketball are on CSN)

http://www.masnsports.com/masn_news_information/find-masn.html

http://www.csnchicago.com/zipcode

Jim Corno does things on the cheap and that is why he survives. He started SportsVision and stayed with SportsChannel-FOX Chicago and now CSN-Chicago.

JR seems very happy with him - but all you have to do is look at any other major market RSN to see how inferior CSN-Chicago is.

WSCR wanted to simulcast a couple of shows but CSN would not pay YET CSN has done that in other markets.

Jerry_Manuel
12-18-2011, 01:20 PM
When I had DirecTV I used to watch YES all the time. They simulcast the Mike Francesa show for 6 hours during the day, they air classic Yankee games, they have the Centerstage show along with Nets broadcasts as well.

If the Sox and Bulls were to come together for a channel you could air old Sox and Bulls games. I assume the teams have control of the footage but I could be wrong. They can simulcast some of the WSCR shows, you can debate whether people would wanna watch that but, you'd have programming.

I'd like to see something like this happen just so the team can hopefully bring in more revenue to spend on players.

DSpivack
12-18-2011, 01:23 PM
When I had DirecTV I used to watch YES all the time. They simulcast the Mike Francesa show for 6 hours during the day, they air classic Yankee games, they have the Centerstage show along with Nets broadcasts as well.

If the Sox and Bulls were to come together for a channel you could air old Sox and Bulls games. I assume the teams have control of the footage but I could be wrong. They can simulcast some of the WSCR shows, you can debate whether people would wanna watch that but, you'd have programming.

I'd like to see something like this happen just so the team can hopefully bring in more revenue to spend on players.

For some reason I used to get YES when I had RCN, I liked that they had a bunch of Arsenal programming.

They do air some old Sox and Bulls games, although more of the latter recently because of the lockout than anything else, and not that many of them. I wonder if much of the CSN programming across the RSN's are shared.

As for the Angels, are their broadcasts really worth $150 million per season? Do they get that good ratings?

Jerry_Manuel
12-18-2011, 01:30 PM
For some reason I used to get YES when I had RCN, I liked that they had a bunch of Arsenal programming.

They do air some old Sox and Bulls games, although more of the latter recently because of the lockout than anything else, and not that many of them. I wonder if much of the CSN programming across the RSN's are shared.

As for the Angels, are their broadcasts really worth $150 million per season? Do they get that good ratings?

I actually started watching Mike and the MadDog on Yes at first. Then I started watching the other shows they have on the network. They had Hotstove shows during the winter and I liked watching the spring training games they would air.

Fenway
12-18-2011, 01:32 PM
For some reason I used to get YES when I had RCN, I liked that they had a bunch of Arsenal programming.

They do air some old Sox and Bulls games, although more of the latter recently because of the lockout than anything else, and not that many of them. I wonder if much of the CSN programming across the RSN's are shared.

As for the Angels, are their broadcasts really worth $150 million per season? Do they get that good ratings?

Last year they were tied with the Dodgers for the WORST in MLB

Bottom 5
Houston FS Houston 1.51 (-40.3%)
Oakland CSN California 1.24 (+5.1%)
Washington MASN/MASN2 1.22 (-4.7%)
Los Angeles Angels FS West 1.14 (-5.8%)
Los Angeles Dodgers FS Prime Ticket 1.14 (-30.1%)

CSN-NE only has the Celtics but otherwise has a higher non game audience than NESN - this show is one reason why.
http://www.csnne.com/shows/felger-and-mazz

DSpivack
12-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Last year they were tied with the Dodgers for the WORST in MLB

Bottom 5
Houston FS Houston 1.51 (-40.3%)
Oakland CSN California 1.24 (+5.1%)
Washington MASN/MASN2 1.22 (-4.7%)
Los Angeles Angels FS West 1.14 (-5.8%)
Los Angeles Dodgers FS Prime Ticket 1.14 (-30.1%)

CSN-NE only has the Celtics but otherwise has a higher non game audience than NESN - this show is one reason why.
http://www.csnne.com/shows/felger-and-mazz

So what justifies they huge new contract?

Fenway
12-18-2011, 01:45 PM
So what justifies they huge new contract?

RSN's don't worry about ratings - just number of homes they are in.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2011, 02:49 PM
Spivak:

Here is your answer (from my original post summarizing the S.I. story):

"Story says Fox panicked when they lost the Lakers to Time Warner Cable and the fact that the Dodgers might jump to that company as well."

You've got to have some type of live programming and Fox Sports West felt there was a decent chance they'd be shut out.

Jerry: Control of old / classic games rests with the leagues themselves but as Bob explained there simply aren't enough old Sox games to fill time.

What I notice about YES is that for a "sports network" they sure air a lot of non-sports type stuff. (talk shows, infomercials...) but they still have far more Yankee type material / documentaries that the Sox do because they kept a lot of their historical footage. It wasn't thrown out in the alley or 'lost' mysteriously.

Lip

DSpivack
12-18-2011, 02:56 PM
Spivak:

Here is your answer (from my original post summarizing the S.I. story):

"Story says Fox panicked when they lost the Lakers to Time Warner Cable and the fact that the Dodgers might jump to that company as well."

You've got to have some type of live programming and Fox Sports West felt there was a decent chance they'd be shut out.

Jerry: Control of old / classic games rests with the leagues themselves but as Bob explained there simply aren't enough old Sox games to fill time.

What I notice about YES is that for a "sports network" they sure air a lot of non-sports type stuff. (talk shows, infomercials...) but they still have far more Yankee type material / documentaries that the Sox do because they kept a lot of their historical footage. It wasn't thrown out in the alley or 'lost' mysteriously.

Lip

MLB is much more stringent at controlling their videos online (nothing on youtube, etc.) than any other league. Does that carry over to replaying games on cable?

Fenway
12-18-2011, 03:18 PM
MLB is much more stringent at controlling their videos online (nothing on youtube, etc.) than any other league. Does that carry over to replaying games on cable?

MLB has never stopped NESN from showing any Red Sox material.

A lot of the NYY saved stuff came from the networks that saved more than local outlets did. Much of the WPIX stuff was lost however.

Filling time? You work out deals with other team owned RSN's or networks. The bottom line is that only the live games give the channel value.

Every White Sox game since 1977 exists - it was mandated by Bowie Kuhn when TWIB started. Problem is 3/4 inch tape looks awful by today's standards.

You think YES is bad? Look at LEAFS TV
http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/v2/ext/LeafsGrid-December12-18v1.pdf

When CUBS-TV starts you know it will be a well polished house organ just like their Vineline magazine.

The White Sox has simply never bothered do do anything like that. They only started SoxFest because the Cubs Convention was such a huge hit. Why they don't I don't understand.

Prime example - even if it loses money at startup, get every game on Spanish radio and then add it to the SAP on TV. The Hispanic audience in Chicago is huge....make some attempt to capture it. The team might be able to sell a lot more churros.



Corno has a reputation that nothing will air unless it pays for itself.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2011, 04:18 PM
If every Sox game since 1977 exists, then apparently the Sox themselves as well as WGN-TV doesn't know where it is nor have they ever seen it based on what Bob Grim and Rich King told me in their interviews.

Lip

Fenway
12-18-2011, 04:49 PM
If every Sox game since 1977 exists, then apparently the Sox themselves as well as WGN-TV doesn't know where it is nor have they ever seen it based on what Bob Grim and Rich King told me in their interviews.

Lip

That is when the mandate started - that is how TWIB got its footage. By the 80's MLB could just tape them in NY off the bird.

Kuhn saw what NFL Films was doing and wanted baseball to do the same.

Curt Smith has been a good source of MLB's broadcasting history but he seems to have stopped blogging..

http://curtsmith.mlblogs.com/author/mlblogscurtsmith1/

Lip Man 1
12-18-2011, 04:56 PM
Which doesn't mean complete games were stored or are still available. TWIB simply ran highlights (those same highlights can be used for future use of course..)

As I said if complete game are available from the late 70's through 1983 apparently neither the Sox themselves nor WGN know about them.

Perhaps someone needs to send them the memo?

Lip

Fenway
12-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Which doesn't mean complete games were stored or are still available. TWIB simply ran highlights (those same highlights can be used for future use of course..)

As I said if complete game are available from the late 70's through 1983 apparently neither the Sox themselves nor WGN know about them.

Perhaps someone needs to send them the memo?

Lip

Lip they SHOULD have been - stations were supposed to send the tape to NY. TWIB editors needed the entire game to find stuff not seen in the highlights - that was the beauty of the show.

Chicago was not good at keeping old newspaper photos either. It is tragic but that is the reality.

WhiteSox5187
12-18-2011, 09:11 PM
Lip they SHOULD have been - stations were supposed to send the tape to NY. TWIB editors needed the entire game to find stuff not seen in the highlights - that was the beauty of the show.

Chicago was not good at keeping old newspaper photos either. It is tragic but that is the reality.

My dad worked for the White Sox in the late 1970s and one of his jobs was to edit the game tapes for the clips necessary for TWIB, so the game tapes were NOT shipped off to New York. They were edited in Chicago.

Fenway
12-18-2011, 09:23 PM
My dad worked for the White Sox in the late 1970s and one of his jobs was to edit the game tapes for the clips necessary for TWIB, so the game tapes were NOT shipped off to New York. They were edited in Chicago.

Settles that.

Now what may have played a factor with Boston tapes was that WSBK-TV was carried in New York so games could be taped there.

A Red Sox nut in NY wrote in SI about getting the notice from the cable company that Boston games would be offered.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1094659/2/index.htm

Lip Man 1
12-18-2011, 09:41 PM
That seems to settle the question about "complete" Sox games doesn't it?

Lip

Fenway
12-18-2011, 09:57 PM
That seems to settle the question about "complete" Sox games doesn't it?

Lip

Apparently.

Boston was very fortunate that somebody at WSBK thought saving games was important. It really hits home with Bruins archives - for example the only reason Bobby Hull's retirement exists is WSBK kept it.

Gene Kirby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Kirby) is the reason the Red Sox archive is better than most. He was horrified that the 1967 World Series doesn't exist except for 30 seconds and made sure it would never happen again.

WhiteSox5187
12-18-2011, 10:06 PM
That seems to settle the question about "complete" Sox games doesn't it?

Lip

I should state that I don't know for certain what happened with the tapes after they were edited.

Fenway
12-18-2011, 10:20 PM
I should state that I don't know for certain what happened with the tapes after they were edited.

There were so many variables involved back then. While 3/4 inch tape became common in the early 70's, there were in some markets union rules that mandated that 2 inch machines be used to protect jobs. Chicago was a huge NABET and IBEW town so that may have played a part.

Most RADIO broadcasts that have survived are only because somebody at home recorded the games. Stations back then simply did not archive anything.

TommyJohn
12-19-2011, 06:34 PM
There were so many variables involved back then. While 3/4 inch tape became common in the early 70's, there were in some markets union rules that mandated that 2 inch machines be used to protect jobs. Chicago was a huge NABET and IBEW town so that may have played a part.

Most RADIO broadcasts that have survived are only because somebody at home recorded the games. Stations back then simply did not archive anything.

You know, I just thought of a White Sox clip that does exist-the 9th inning of a 1979 game between the Yankees and White Sox. It was from August 1st. It is Don Kessinger's last game as player-manager, and Thurman Munson's last game as it is the night before he would be killed in a plane crash. Eerie stuff. I remember it went on youtube for a while then got pulled down just as suddenly. I don't know if the whole game tape exists, but the 9th inning definitely does.

#1swisher
12-29-2011, 12:32 PM
Albert Pujols' contract with LAA includes an addendum, "personal services" provision, which begins when he retires and expires in 2032.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/29/wisch-pujols-angels-contract-isnt-for-10-years-its-for-20/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_campaign=CBS+Chicago%27s+Most+Popular+Sports+S tories!

Lip Man 1
12-29-2011, 12:58 PM
There have been others along the same lines in the past. Al Hrabosky when he signed with the Braves had a deal where he'd be paid for services to the organization for 20 years and included a provision about being a broadcaster for the club.

Lip

Fenway
12-29-2011, 01:12 PM
The Red Sox will be paying Manny Ramirez until 2027

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/11/the-red-sox-will-be-paying-manny-ramirez-until-2027/

Noneck
12-29-2011, 01:37 PM
The Red Sox will be paying Manny Ramirez until 2027

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/11/the-red-sox-will-be-paying-manny-ramirez-until-2027/

Rightfully so, without Manny boston would still be talking about ghosts and goblins along with the cubs.

TheVulture
12-30-2011, 08:33 PM
The Hispanic audience in Chicago is huge....make some attempt to capture it. The team might be able to sell a lot more churros.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r115/subgenius88/images.jpg

soxfanreggie
12-31-2011, 04:27 PM
Apparently.

Boston was very fortunate that somebody at WSBK thought saving games was important. It really hits home with Bruins archives - for example the only reason Bobby Hull's retirement exists is WSBK kept it.

Gene Kirby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Kirby) is the reason the Red Sox archive is better than most. He was horrified that the 1967 World Series doesn't exist except for 30 seconds and made sure it would never happen again.

I wonder if the Sox did a big media blitz if people around the country would come forward with game tapes of the Sox. There have to be some people out there who recorded games and have tapes sitting around in a basement or attic that the Sox could work with. It might not hurt to try and swing deals with other teams who have footage of the Sox either to see if we can get some.

Albert Pujols' contract with LAA includes an addendum, "personal services" provision, which begins when he retires and expires in 2032.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/29/wisch-pujols-angels-contract-isnt-for-10-years-its-for-20/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_campaign=CBS+Chicago%27s+Most+Popular+Sports+S tories!

Wow, I'm wondering if the Angels would bar him from going to a number/jersey retirement ceremony. That could be really interesting to see play out way down the road.

soxinem1
01-02-2012, 09:03 AM
The Red Sox will be paying Manny Ramirez until 2027

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/11/the-red-sox-will-be-paying-manny-ramirez-until-2027/

And the NYM will be paying Bobby Bonilla until 2035 because of a deferred payment deal when they bought out his contract in 2000.

Bonilla was owed just $5.9 million at the time they wanted to buy out his contract, however the Mets agreed to defer it ten years at 8% interest (gulp!!)...... meaning they will be paying him nearly $30 million.