Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Better position? Yes, I don't disagree at all. However, I don't believe we risk losing hundreds of millions of $'s unless we decide to have a 10 year rebuild and/or the Rickettses lose their fortune tomorrow morning. I also think 2013 will be the final "lost season" that we will need to endure before we start spending like a big market team again. We're moving in the right direction, and industry people recognize this.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
The Diamondbacks have agreed to sign right-hander Brandon McCarthy, John Gambadoro of 620 KTAR in Phoenix reports.
Posts: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354919826' post='200085']The Diamondbacks have agreed to sign right-hander Brandon McCarthy, John Gambadoro of 620 KTAR in Phoenix reports.[/quote]
2 years, $15.5 MM deal
Is he's still injured or just really wants to play in Arizona?
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354922498' post='200086']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354919826' post='200085']The Diamondbacks have agreed to sign right-hander Brandon McCarthy, John Gambadoro of 620 KTAR in Phoenix reports.[/quote]
2 years, $15.5 MM deal
Is he's still injured or just really wants to play in Arizona?
[/quote]
All reports are that he is healthy and throwing again. At that price though, you'd think every team in baseball would have taken him. Strange.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354914699' post='200081']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
[/quote]
This would be the equivalent of a hitter renegotiating a 3 year extension in the middle of a season losing "leverage" because he had a bad week at the plate. Unless broadcast networks have some reason to believe the Cubs will be bad for years on end, their current situation will have no bearing on a 20-30 year television contract.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='BT' timestamp='1354931386' post='200090'][quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354914699' post='200081']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
[/quote]
This would be the equivalent of a hitter renegotiating a 3 year extension in the middle of a season losing "leverage" because he had a bad week at the plate. Unless broadcast networks have some reason to believe the Cubs will be bad for years on end, their current situation will have no bearing on a 20-30 year television contract.[/quote]
My understanding is that tv ratings for the Cubs have been trending downward since the last playoff year, 2008, and my guess is that they'll continue trending down until the Cubs field a competitive team which by most guesses could be 2015. The ratings could pop up before then but most likely will trend down until they begin playing better than 500 ball so 2015 could be a decent guess.
So your one bad week at the plate analogy equates to around 7 years so guess you expecting a 200 year cable deal rather than a 10-20 year deal?
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354932892' post='200091']
[quote name='BT' timestamp='1354931386' post='200090'][quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354914699' post='200081']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
[/quote]
This would be the equivalent of a hitter renegotiating a 3 year extension in the middle of a season losing "leverage" because he had a bad week at the plate. Unless broadcast networks have some reason to believe the Cubs will be bad for years on end, their current situation will have no bearing on a 20-30 year television contract.[/quote]
My understanding is that tv ratings for the Cubs have been trending downward since the last playoff year, 2008, and my guess is that they'll continue trending down until the Cubs field a competitive team which by most guesses could be 2015. The ratings could pop up before then but most likely will trend down until they begin playing better than 500 ball so 2015 could be a decent guess.
So your one bad week at the plate analogy equates to around 7 years so guess you expecting a 200 year cable deal rather than a 10-20 year deal?
[/quote]
Of course they are "trending downwards" since 2008, as the Cubs had the best record in baseball in 2008. Their package would not have been based on their 2008 numbers any more than they would be based on their 2012 numbers. If a cable executive came up to the Cubs and said "Based on our analysis of your last 5 years of ratings, or estimates show you won't have any viewers left by 2030", you'd rightly call him a fucking idiot. A cable executive would look at trends over the last 20-30 years. Why in God's name would they start their analysis in 2008?
furthermore, you misread my analogy completely. I was responding to Straws comment that a less shitty team RIGHT NOW would put the Cubs in a better position of strength. Even if that were the case (and it's not), it wouldn't negate the fact that the numbers have trended downward since 2008, if the cable executives are stupid enough to look at 4 year trends when bidding for the rights for the Cubs. So no, I'm not expecting a 200 year cable deal.
They will bid on the Cubs based on how popular they think the team will be going forward. If they don't think the team can regain 2008 popularity, they won't bid as much for them. Signing Keppinger will not sway them in this analysis. As Rok said, if the Padres can secure that kind of money, there is no reason to think the Cubs current standings will hamstring them, and there is certainly no reason to fashion the roster to try and impress the guys from Kabletown.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Dempster turns down 2 year, $25 MM offer from Red Sox and 2 year, $26 MM offer from Royals.
Cubs and Brewers still in discussion with him.
Wouldn't want anything to do with Demp moving forward but had same belief going into last season which turned out to be a career or near career year for him
Posts: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='BT' timestamp='1354936074' post='200092']
Of course they are "trending downwards" since 2008, as the Cubs had the best record in baseball in 2008. Their package would not have been based on their 2008 numbers any more than they would be based on their 2012 numbers. If a cable executive came up to the Cubs and said "Based on our analysis of your last 5 years of ratings, or estimates show you won't have any viewers left by 2030", you'd rightly call him a fucking idiot. A cable executive would look at trends over the last 20-30 years. Why in God's name would they start their analysis in 2008?
furthermore, you misread my analogy completely. I was responding to Straws comment that a less shitty team RIGHT NOW would put the Cubs in a better position of strength. Even if that were the case (and it's not), it wouldn't negate the fact that the numbers have trended downward since 2008, if the cable executives are stupid enough to look at 4 year trends when bidding for the rights for the Cubs. So no, I'm not expecting a 200 year cable deal.
They will bid on the Cubs based on how popular they think the team will be going forward. If they don't think the team can regain 2008 popularity, they won't bid as much for them. Signing Keppinger will not sway them in this analysis. As Rok said, if the Padres can secure that kind of money, there is no reason to think the Cubs current standings will hamstring them, and there is certainly no reason to fashion the roster to try and impress the guys from Kabletown.
[/quote]
Signing Kepplinger is clearly the key to Cubs fortunes and current declining TV ratings trends will result in no one watching the Cubs, growing tried of your use of hyperbole and not certain of your point.
Recent declining trends will have a greater affect on the value of the Cubs TV deal than the future expectations or results from more distant past. Cubs TV revenue has been estimated at $45 MM which is seen as low and is partially due to Tribune's desire to keep costs low for it's media umbrella. Compare this $45 MM figure to the deal that Fox and Dodgers have been discussing for $240 MM per year for 25 years.
Rather than re-reading pages of commentary, here's a synopsis of points - Just as TV revenues are expecting to explode, interest in the Cubs is waning so spending an additional $10 - 20 MM to make the club more competitive in the near term should pay off in additional TV revenue and reduce the amount of time it takes the Cubs to rebuild and regularly field a playoff contending team.
It appears that you don't agree with that statement so my question is, 'Other than gaining a better draft position, how does fielding a roster with obvious holes, losing more often and spending $10-20 MM less on free agents help the Cubs become more competitive in the future?'
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I'd welcome Dempster back if he's willing to do it at a discount. He's a quality pitcher that can eat innings. In good stretches he's a solid #2. 2 year deal at $22-24 M and I won't complain.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
We fielded a competitive team in 2009, and were believed to have one in 2010 (with a top 5 payroll), so I don't see the point of adding a ton of payroll just to add a few wins. Fans and media types were not swayed then, and ratings didn't exactly go through the roof as a result of "going for it." Nothing short of a complete cleansing (we will spend again when the time is right) will turn things around, and only then will interest in the team return (it never went away) in a big way. We aren't sacrificing 100s of millions of $'s of dollars in future revenue. I'm not sure where that came from, and why people are ignoring the Padres example, I don't know.
Posts: 6,476
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Ivy let me guess, you're pissed we didn't sign Ludwick too?
|
