12-09-2012, 12:13 AM
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354969005' post='200096']
[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?'
[/quote]
Since you only seem to concentrate on Keppinger, and continue to not understand that he represents a class of players and not a specific person, I'm not particularly sorry that you are tired of my hyperbole. I've tried to explain it, and Rok has explained it. If you don't get it, I'm not sure what else to say. Short term fixes in order to gain a few wins aren't going to make a difference in cable negotiations because cable executives aren't stupid and don't base their numbers on specific seasons, or even 4 or 5 year swings, unless they have a reason to believe those swings will be permanent. There is no reason to believe the Cubs will be permanently cheap, or permanently bad.
To answer your last question, the Cubs are not losing to secure a #1 draft position. They are losing and not fixing holes in their team because the players available to fix the holes in their team are not seen as long term fixes. Spending money on guys who have no future in the organization in order to go from 101 losses to 91 losses would be a cynical way to run the franchise, and would be playing us for chumps a lot more then they are right now. If the Cubs had signed some assholes 2 years ago in order for us to "compete" a little better, we'd have a prospect significantly worse than Almora to show for it, and we would have no playoffs in exchange. But the Ricketts might have more money in their pockets, because maybe more people show up to see a slightly better team.
I'm glad they aren't running the team that way.
[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?'
[/quote]
Since you only seem to concentrate on Keppinger, and continue to not understand that he represents a class of players and not a specific person, I'm not particularly sorry that you are tired of my hyperbole. I've tried to explain it, and Rok has explained it. If you don't get it, I'm not sure what else to say. Short term fixes in order to gain a few wins aren't going to make a difference in cable negotiations because cable executives aren't stupid and don't base their numbers on specific seasons, or even 4 or 5 year swings, unless they have a reason to believe those swings will be permanent. There is no reason to believe the Cubs will be permanently cheap, or permanently bad.
To answer your last question, the Cubs are not losing to secure a #1 draft position. They are losing and not fixing holes in their team because the players available to fix the holes in their team are not seen as long term fixes. Spending money on guys who have no future in the organization in order to go from 101 losses to 91 losses would be a cynical way to run the franchise, and would be playing us for chumps a lot more then they are right now. If the Cubs had signed some assholes 2 years ago in order for us to "compete" a little better, we'd have a prospect significantly worse than Almora to show for it, and we would have no playoffs in exchange. But the Ricketts might have more money in their pockets, because maybe more people show up to see a slightly better team.
I'm glad they aren't running the team that way.
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.