PDA

View Full Version : How local TV deals are changing baseball.


Fenway
02-12-2012, 12:08 PM
TV deals for Angels, Rangers open door for other teams
By Bob Nightengale (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/story/2012-02-06/MLB-teams-using-lucrative-TV-deals-to-sign-talent/53032284/1)

JR says he worries that KC can not keep up and Einhorn says he never saw this coming.

ComiskeyBrewer
02-12-2012, 04:52 PM
This income really are the difference between the haves and the have nots. Markets like Milwaukee and KC can have success, but they need to draft REALLY well, because there is little to no chance they can make a huge impact via Free Agency. This really limits the window of opportunity for these clubs.

ChicagoG19
02-12-2012, 07:49 PM
This income really are the difference between the haves and the have nots. Markets like Milwaukee and KC can have success, but they need to draft REALLY well, because there is little to no chance they can make a huge impact via Free Agency. This really limits the window of opportunity for these clubs.

I think they can have some long-term success like the Rays by taking some risk s on young players and signing them to a long-term deals (i.e. Evan Longoria).

Lip Man 1
02-12-2012, 08:17 PM
There is no question in my mind that the disparity in TV markets puts 'smaller market' clubs at a disadvantage however I'd used caution when talking about the Royals.

Their owner, one of the richest men in America according to Forbes and in line to get at least a part of the Wal - Mart fortune which would increase his net worth through the roof, CHOSE for many years to NOT spend money on his franchise and when he did, did so in a half cocked manner.

David Glass was totally opposed to anything that would drive up the cost of ballplayers. His stance during the labor impasse of 1993-94 was well documented.

He had the power to change the direction of that franchise by hiring good people and signing good players, he voluntarily chose not to...let's not forget that.

Lip

Fenway
02-12-2012, 08:47 PM
It continues to evolve.

Nobody except Red Sox ownership knows how much NESN 'pays' the team for each game. Same applies to the Yankees and YES. We know that the White Sox get $450K for every telecast on CSN ( WGN/WCIU is less but the number isn't public)

This is similar to the 90's when WTBS and WGN (Cubs) had on paper small TV contracts as they were never put out to bid since the stations and teams had the same owner.

MLB is concerned because it affects revenue sharing. I know that Comcast (CSN-NE) would love to bid on the Red Sox and Bruins but they never get the chance to do so.

The Rangers got their windfall when the Astros announced they would join CSN-Houston and leave FOX-Houston/Southwest. This in turn caused FOX to give the Rangers big bucks. Texas has wacky blackout rules going back to the 80's where the Astros are allowed to pump games into Dallas and the Rangers into Houston. That is a LOT of TV homes.

Comcast will only set up a RSN IF it is in a market where they provide cable service. ( The once exception is NY where they own part of SNY but they only have a few systems in Connecticut and New Jersey. )

In Philadelphia CSN is only offered to wired cable (Comcast, RCN and Verizon ) it is NOT available to dish owners which drives sports bars crazy because of Sunday Ticket.

Nothing will change until if/when a-la-carte pricing happens in the US like Canada has.