Farm system tapering out in the late '80s seems an odd claim to make about a franchise that won ROY five consecutive years from 1992-96. Not to mention producing two first ballot HOFers in Pedro Martinez and Mike Piazza during that time.

that's a good point, but what happened to those ROYs? and didn't the dodgers trade both martinez and piazza? that speaks to the institutional myopia of management, which i agree with. tora's overall point is not without merit.

Farm system tapering out in the late '80s seems an odd claim to make about a franchise that won ROY five consecutive years from 1992-96. Not to mention producing two first ballot HOFers in Pedro Martinez and Mike Piazza during that time.

Good call there. I was working from memory alone when I made my comments.
That said, I'm not sure people realize how deep the Dodgers farm system was once upon a time. For decades they produced ML ready players assembly line fashion, especially SP who they would overwork and send on their way, only to pull up their next stud ace to slot in the gap.
This is a team that in the 70's started a home grown IF and through much of the 80's produced almost all of their own pitchers. Not to mention the many many ex Dodgers prospects that littered other teams via trades, rule 5 signings.

As the game changed, other teams got smarter, the draft tightened up signing players, some of their best FO talent went on to greener pastures, and O'Malley spent less, the Dodgers system slowly dried up.

And, to defend myself a bit, of those five ROY, Piazza was an absolute crapshoot hit the lotto deal, the last pick in the draft who miraculously turns into a HoF'er.. Nomo was signed from Japan and wasn't a Dodgers farm system product and, while they were serviceable major league players, I wouldn't exactly be shouting from the rooftops about the trio of Mondesi, Hollandsworth and Karros

What's the MLB record for the most money eaten on a contract? Would be an interesting chart.

Absolute dollars were much smaller back then, but I recall that at one point the Braves were paying more to players not on their roster than the Expos were paying their entire team.

What's the MLB record for the most money eaten on a contract?

I believe at one time, the Tigers held the record with Damion Easley, but that was long time ago. Mike Hampton might be up there. Tigers ate a lot of money letting Gary Sheffield go. The Giants released Aaron Rowand with some $12 million owed to him.

Good call there. I was working from memory alone when I made my comments.

The Dodgers had a run of first round draft pick busts which is probably what you're remembering (Dan Opperman, Bill Bene, Kiki Jones, Ronnie Walden, David Yocum) but overall the system seemed to still churn out decent players (also overlooked - they produced Paul Konerko).

Didn't the Mets owe Bobby Bonilla 12 bazillion dollars when they released him?

MLB just signed a deal with ESPN that is double what ESPN paid last time. The tidal wave of tv money shows no signs of letting up.

MLB just signed a deal with ESPN that is double what ESPN paid last time.

Well looks like the sportswriters are right, baseball is losing popularity and no one wants to watch it on TV.

Natioanl contracts don't really mean much to the teams. The deal comes out to something like 20 million per team.


One little thing in the contract that is going to be huge is that ESPN gets to increase the amount of Yankees and Red Sox games they air.

Natioanl contracts don't really mean much to the teams. The deal comes out to something like 20 million per team.

It's indicative that tv rights are going to continue to increase at the speed of light which is what this thread is nominally about.

The entities that require and enforce these Byzantine blackout restrictions are not the content providers, but the sport bodies themselves. If given the choice, MLB.TV wouldn't black out anyone, and neither would E5PN. MLB wants to sell the Yankees, for example, as many times as they can. But they know that viewership is a zero-sum game, as do the bidders. So they sell the rights to YES, who have an interest in not seeing this valuable content get put all over the other screens in their area; people won't watch the games on YES then. So MLB requires others to whom they sell the rights to black out their coverage, so that eyeballs don't leave YES and watch the game on E5PN or MLB.TV or whatever. This makes Yankee broadcast rights more valuable and more exclusive, and allows MLB to sell the same games multiple times (they get local money from YES; national money from E5PN, FOX, and others; streaming money from MLB.TV; and international broadcast rights from E5PN again).

Fair enough, up to a point. But before we go any further, I think I'm going to stop using "content providers" as it's a vague term IMO. So let's talk about content creators (studios that produce shows, or the sports teams/leagues themselves), content financiers/aggregators (individual networks), and content deliverers (cablecos/telcos/sat providers).

Now the normal arrangement for TV shows (non-sports division) is: content creators have an idea for a cool new show where a rogue former Navy Seal becomes a private eye who can solve cases because he doesn't have to follow the Rules. (Wholly original idea!) The content creator starts shopping the show around to the content financiers/aggregators like CBS, Fox, AMC, and so on. FX decides they'll bite, and they order up a pilot. They give the content creator a couple million bucks to go make the pilot. Content creator goes and starts hiring people, settling on Mark Wahlberg as the former Navy Seal, Chris O'Donnell as a current cop who views Marky Mark as a dangerous vigilante, Kevin Weisman as the socially-inept nerd who handles Marky Mark's tech needs, and Zooey Deschanel as Marky Mark's quirky love interest. They shoot the pilot, and FX likes it (although they want some minor changes). They agree to a $1m/episode license fee, which becomes the show's budget, and order up 12 more episodes. FX then sells advertising time during the show, thus hopefully recouping the money for the license fee. If the show's especially popular, they might be able to negotiate higher carriage fees with the various content deliverers. Meanwhile, the creators don't technically make a profit from the license fee (though obviously everybody gets paid, etc.); they normally get money from merchandising, DVD/Blu-Ray sales, agreements with rental outfits like Redbox and Netflix, and syndication (re-selling the show after first run to other networks).

So the function of the middle-men is to finance the show creation, gather a bunch of them together, and sell advertising time (as well as the network itself to the content deliverers).

The model isn't all that different with sports. The networks (RSN, national, etc.) provide funding for the leagues to run (well, partially anyway, along with ticket sales and whatnot). They then sell advertising and themselves.

So basically, they're brokers. And they can function as brokers because they more or less have monopolies, in the sense that if you want to watch Private Aye, you have to watch it on FX. If you want to watch the Yankees game, you need YES (assuming it's not a national game). But like all middle-men, they take a cut. So do the content deliverers. (The reason Verizon and AT&T got into the game is because delivering TV services is a lot more profitable than consumer-grade Internet services.) And sooner or later, content creators are going to start thinking about how they could make more money by eliminating the middle-men.

Baseball, of course, is a bit different from other sports because while the league handles the national deals, the teams individually do local deals. And it's even more complex because some/many/most(?) teams financially participate in the RSNs themselves. But I still believe that it's possible to get the revenue streams direct (either advertisers->creators or end users->creators, or some mix of the two).

Now, is that possible today? No. Nor is it possible anytime soon. But eventually, I suspect a mechanism will be developed. I'm not smart enough to know exactly how that will work. And maybe it won't exactly; maybe there will still be some kind of aggregator or aggregators like Hulu. But it's going to change fairly radically at some point, and yeah, the deliverers will be the first to die.

It's indicative that tv rights are going to continue to increase at the speed of light which is what this thread is nominally about.

Except that's not sustainable; as someone else rightly said, it's a bubble.

Except that's not sustainable; as someone else rightly said, it's a bubble.

So where is all the money going to go? TV might be a bubble but I seriously doubt media revenue is a bubble. So the issue is who captures that revenue and how do they dole it out. Sports being a live form of entertainment that goes stale quickly is very well positioned to be a major market force in the media industry regardless of how the content is delivered. I can't see how sports leagues are not going to be able to cash in on this strength over the next few decades.

Also, if a "bubble" lasts for 20 to 30 years is it really a bubble?

Except that's not sustainable; as someone else rightly said, it's a bubble.

Maybe. I honestly don't know as I haven't looked under the hood at this. It's an interesting investment project, though. Makes you feel sorry for the NFL, though, no? I'm sure they would kill hundreds to have as much content as baseball...

Now the normal arrangement for TV shows (non-sports division) is: content creators have an idea for a cool new show where a rogue former Navy Seal becomes a private eye who can solve cases because he doesn't have to follow the Rules. (Wholly original idea!) The content creator starts shopping the show around to the content financiers/aggregators like CBS, Fox, AMC, and so on. FX decides they'll bite, and they order up a pilot. They give the content creator a couple million bucks to go make the pilot.

My impression is that networks are going away from the independent producer model, and trying to keep programming in-house as much as possible. Since the value of network assemblage itself is probably diminished, this seems to make sense.

Natioanl contracts don't really mean much to the teams. The deal comes out to something like 20 million per team.


One little thing in the contract that is going to be huge is that ESPN gets to increase the amount of Yankees and Red Sox games they air.

What is the national audience for Red Sox/Yankees now? Or are they just narrowcasting to Northeasterners and their ex-pats? I am honestly asking, this may be the right move for them. I would never sit down to watch one of these games, since I can watch my own team.

Maybe narrowcasting is the way to go for them. They don't televise the WS, who cares if no one watches because people don't know the players.

So where is all the money going to go? TV might be a bubble but I seriously doubt media revenue is a bubble. So the issue is who captures that revenue and how do they dole it out. Sports being a live form of entertainment that goes stale quickly is very well positioned to be a major market force in the media industry regardless of how the content is delivered. I can't see how sports leagues are not going to be able to cash in on this strength over the next few decades.

If the numbers-crunchers thought the cable companies would make more money by putting a channel like YES on the premium tier and charging $10 or $20 per month instead of charging every subscriber $3/mo., they would have done so by now. The current model is only working because the cable companies are able to force millions of non-sports fans to pay for high-price sports channels they don't really want. It's a great racket the cable companies have, and they've had it for decades, but I wouldn't bet that it will remain in place for 20 more years to come.

MLBAM is a multibillion dollar company making a boatload of money each year and their content by and large is not forced down anyone's throat. If you want to stream their games online you pay them. If you don't you don't pay them. If you want to be able to watch 10 to 12 games a day on your TV you pay them. If you don't want that you don't give them a dollar. There is ample evidence that there are billions and billions of dollars out there that people want to spend on sports and baseball.

It's indicative that tv rights are going to continue to increase at the speed of light which is what this thread is nominally about.
Except that's not sustainable; as someone else rightly said, it's a bubble.

I've been hearing that since the 1960's

I for one, am really eager for the season premiere of "Private Aye."

Copper is pretty bad. Hell on Wheels is rudderless. Breaking Bad is getting to point where the transformation of Walt to evil is pretty much complete thus the show is becoming less enjoyable. True Blood went all religious on us. Mad Men was kind of "eh". The Borgias are just okay. Basically at this point I'm looking forward to the day when Justified, Game Of Thrones, and Newsroom come back.

MLBAM is a multibillion dollar company making a boatload of money each year and their content by and large is not forced down anyone's throat. If you want to stream their games online you pay them. If you don't you don't pay them. If you want to be able to watch 10 to 12 games a day on your TV you pay them. If you don't want that you don't give them a dollar. There is ample evidence that there are billions and billions of dollars out there that people want to spend on sports and baseball.

I love MLB.tv, but it's mostly a niche product right now. Due to the blackouts, most baseball fans can't truly cut the cord in favor of MLB.tv.

Anyway, MLB.tv is $150 per year, while the average cable bill is about $90 per month. I wonder how much a blackout-free MLB.tv could charge. I'm assuming the numbers aren't favorable or else MLB would be moving away from the blackout policy.

MLBAM is a multibillion dollar company making a boatload of money each year and their content by and large is not forced down anyone's throat.

Are you saying MLBAM's revenue is several billion/yr? I didn't know it's revenue was that high.

It's indicative that tv rights are going to continue to increase at the speed of light which is what this thread is nominally about.
Except that's not sustainable; as someone else rightly said, it's a bubble.

wasn't that the conventional wisdom about salaries when they first started ramping up in the 80s? i seem to remember even james said once in one of the abstracts that it couldn't go on ...

Mad Men was kind of "eh".

i want to disagree with you -- there were some real great episodes/parts of episodes this past season -- but on the whole it was not what i was hoping for.

what turned it into an overall disappointment to me was roger taking acid again at the very end of the last episode and flashing new york. completely gratuitous.

I love MLB.tv, but it's mostly a niche product right now. Due to the blackouts, most baseball fans can't truly cut the cord in favor of MLB.tv.

Anyway, MLB.tv is $150 per year, while the average cable bill is about $90 per month. I wonder how much a blackout-free MLB.tv could charge. I'm assuming the numbers aren't favorable or else MLB would be moving away from the blackout policy.

I'm not sure what this is addressing. The argument isn't that people will cut the cord and pay for MLB.tv. The argument is that the presence of MLB.tv proves that people are willing to actually select baseball and pay for it thus the notion that we are in a "bubble" is probably false and that there is an ocean of money out there and people want to spend it on sports.

I also don't really understand bringing up cable bills in the second paragraph.

wasn't that the conventional wisdom about salaries when they first started ramping up in the 80s? i seem to remember even james said once in one of the abstracts that it couldn't go on ...

Except aren't sports TV contracts rapidly outstripping inflation? Salaries do tend to correlate more or less to economic movement, but sports contracts don't seem to.

I dunno, maybe they will keep growing at dizzying rates. But it's hard to believe (especially as ratings decline) that advertisers will put up with this indefinitely.

I'm not sure what this is addressing. The argument isn't that people will cut the cord and pay for MLB.tv. The argument is that the presence of MLB.tv proves that people are willing to actually select baseball and pay for it thus the notion that we are in a "bubble" is probably false and that there is an ocean of money out there and people want to spend it on sports.

Wait...because some people pay *something* for MLB.TV, it therefore follows that current TV contracts are sustainable and not at all representative of a bubble?

I'm not following.

I thought this was the best season of Mad Men, although I had low expectations now that Don was married.

I can't believe anyone is looking forward to an episode of "Newsroom" unless it is to make snarky comments about it on Twitter.

that's a good point, but what happened to those ROYs? and didn't the dodgers trade both martinez and piazza?

They traded Pedro too early, but they got 5 MVP level seasons out of Piazza. Between him, Nomo, and Mondesi, the Dodgers got full benefit of their cheap early years. Dodgers in this time were not shy about spending, from Darryl Strawberry to Darren Driefort to Kevin Brown.

They spent big money on big names, and produced big talent out of their system, but they just couldn't stick to a plan long enough to piece a real team together. They'd hire a new sheriff, and the second something goes wrong they blow up the whole thing and hire another one.

Wait...because some people pay *something* for MLB.TV, it therefore follows that current TV contracts are sustainable and not at all representative of a bubble?

I'm not following.

I would guess you aren't following as well.

So where is all the money going to go? TV might be a bubble but I seriously doubt media revenue is a bubble. So the issue is who captures that revenue and how do they dole it out. Sports being a live form of entertainment that goes stale quickly is very well positioned to be a major market force in the media industry regardless of how the content is delivered. I can't see how sports leagues are not going to be able to cash in on this strength over the next few decades.

Also, if a "bubble" lasts for 20 to 30 years is it really a bubble?

My personal belief is that there is a bubble at play here, but it may well last for 20 years. If/when it bursts it'll be a generational thing. Anybody who grew up with cable/sattelite is going to keep paying it whether it makes economic sense or not, because they simply aren't capable of accepting alternatives. It'll still be some time before the generation that grows up with on demand alternative vowing controls enough of the purse strings for the cable companies to cut costs.

Edit: as to the MLB.tv thing, I think it proves that these kind of revenue streams might still be possible, but at the very least there will be a huge paradigm shift.

Haven't networks admitted they are overpaying for sports packages on value alone, but because most viewers can't fast forward through ads (because they watch live) its not only lucrative for advertisers, but also the best way to promo the other content on their network? Like I'm not sure NBC turned a profit with the Olympics, but I guarantee you everyone knows Matthew Perry is in a new comedy about a sports talk radio host who awkwardly attends group therapy with hilarious results.

So where is all the money going to go? TV might be a bubble but I seriously doubt media revenue is a bubble.

If media revenue isn't a bubble, why do the cable companies apparently fear an a la carte system rather than move toward an a la carte system? Right now, every cable subscriber is forced to pay $x for channels like YES. Obviously, the bean-counters have figured out that there aren't enough people willing to pay 2x or 3x for YES to make up for the people who would drop sports programming under an a la carte system.

82 Then A) that was a miscalculation because it makes me less likely to turn to NBC for fear of accidentally seeing that show and B) that only works so long as people are willing to overpay for the channels they do see. As alternatives become more prevalent and accepted people are going to quit buying cable. When I started college in '04 everyone who could afford it bought cable. By the time I finished law school this year I bet less than half went in for more than they needed to get Internet access, whether they could afford more or not. The networks would be a special case because they're everywhere and don't sign the kind of regional deals at issue here, they sign national deals that don't impact individual teams much at all.

If media revenue isn't a bubble, why do the cable companies apparently fear an a la carte system rather than move toward an a la carte system? Right now, every cable subscriber is forced to pay $x for channels like YES. Obviously, the bean-counters have figured out that there aren't enough people willing to pay 2x or 3x for YES to make up for the people who would drop sports programming under an a la carte system.

It's more complicated than that. The media companies that own the various networks bundle their offerings together; if you're Comcast and you want to carry Nickelodeon, then you'd better also take NickFour or whatever.

Also, many channels (e.g. shopping channels) PAY the cablecos/etc. for carriage; these, effectively, subsidize the more expensive, big channels. Almost nobody is going to pay for a shopping channel in an a la carte scenario.

EDIT: Furthermore, YES doesn't WANT to be an a la carte option. A common fight is between channel providers (who want to be in the most basic package possible, so as to reach more homes) and the cable/telco/sat providers, who want to put highly desirable channels in the most expensive packages.

Wait...because some people pay *something* for MLB.TV, it therefore follows that current TV contracts are sustainable and not at all representative of a bubble?

I'm not following.

I would guess you aren't following as well.

So where is all the money going to go? TV might be a bubble but I seriously doubt media revenue is a bubble. So the issue is who captures that revenue and how do they dole it out. Sports being a live form of entertainment that goes stale quickly is very well positioned to be a major market force in the media industry regardless of how the content is delivered. I can't see how sports leagues are not going to be able to cash in on this strength over the next few decades.

Also, if a "bubble" lasts for 20 to 30 years is it really a bubble?

Thanks; by re-posting exactly what you've said before, you've made it totally clear. Care to respond to what I actually wrote?

I'm not arguing that sports, more than most other things, will be able to pull in revenue, regardless of the distribution method. And yeah, I don't see why a bubble can't last for that long, but I'm not sure it really has lasted that long either.

McCoy, if Crawford's contract is not a "sunk cost" because they haven't paid it yet, how will they get out of paying it?

EDIT: Furthermore, YES doesn't WANT to be an a la carte option. ...

I know; that's been my main point all along. Right now, YES gets paid by every cable subscriber in the NYC area, including millions of people who aren't big baseball fans. This is great for YES but not so great for non-baseball fans.

It's also great for baseball fans. We pay less for NESN as part of basic cable than we would "a la carte", (if in addition to what we'd pay for basic cable without NESN included in the package). (I'm guessing).

McCoy, if Crawford's contract is not a "sunk cost" because they haven't paid it yet, how will they get out of paying it?

The same way the Red Sox did.

It's also great for baseball fans. We pay less for NESN as part of basic cable than we would "a la carte", (if in addition to what we'd pay for basic cable without NESN included in the package). (I'm guessing).

Sure, but it's the rough equivalent of splitting the check between a person who enjoyed a steak and a person who had a salad.

I love MLB as much as anyone, but I'm not sure my non-MLB-loving neighbors should be forced to subsidize my enjoyment of it.

McCoy, if Crawford's contract is not a "sunk cost" because they haven't paid it yet, how will they get out of paying it?

Same way the Red Sox did.

Am I eating the steak or the salad here? (I prefer the salad.)

The Dodgers will send Crawford and Gonzalez where?

I'm sure there are there are things on basic cable that your neighbors like that you don't like, too, but that's how it goes, and I think we all pay less because of it.

edit...at least, I think *I* do, because I like choices! I watch a lot of stuff that happens to be on basic cable that I'm sure I wouldn't had I had to pay for them "a la carte".

The Dodgers will send Crawford and Gonzalez where?

They could send Crawford to any number of places. It may be that they have to send very valuable players to do it, but it can still be done.

Now, if they released Crawford, we could consider the remaining contract minus 5 years of the minimum salary to be both sunk and future costs since they have to pay it no matter what.

I suppose they could, given similar circumstances. The point is that Crawford's contract is likely to be a "sunk cost" for someone, and right now, tag, the Dodgers are "it".

If media revenue isn't a bubble, why do the cable companies apparently fear an a la carte system rather than move toward an a la carte system? Right now, every cable subscriber is forced to pay $x for channels like YES. Obviously, the bean-counters have figured out that there aren't enough people willing to pay 2x or 3x for YES to make up for the people who would drop sports programming under an a la carte system.

Why are the cable providers the issue here? I don't care about them. I don't care about YES. I don't care about MLBAM. The point is that their is an ocean of money out there for sports entertainment and someone somewhere is going to give a lot of it to MLB.

Thanks; by re-posting exactly what you've said before, you've made it totally clear. Care to respond to what I actually wrote?

I'm not arguing that sports, more than most other things, will be able to pull in revenue, regardless of the distribution method. And yeah, I don't see why a bubble can't last for that long, but I'm not sure it really has lasted that long either.

No, I don't care to respond to gibberish.

If something lasts for 30 to 50 years it ain't a bubble it's an era.

McCoy, if Crawford's contract is not a "sunk cost" because they haven't paid it yet, how will they get out of paying it?

Answered several times. A sunk cost is a cost already paid and not retrievable. Even cutting Carl Crawford does not make his future costs sunk costs because there is still a possibility that they can avoid paying it. You can call it an expected sunk cost if you want but it is not a sunk cost yet.

I don't see the cable TV model disappearing for a while. Next recession I think more mid-range retail goes down, mid-range restaurants. Anything that requires people to get out of the house and spend money. Cable TV doesn't require that, it's a relatively cheap entertainment option, scales for a family, makes people feel more well off. It's going to be here for a while.

Cable providers have very smartly also become your internet providers. They aren't going away anytime soon.