Oops, I just submitted this, too.

This is the most depressing article ever.

That it is.

I think McGuirk has been a part of the power structure there for many, many years, and him blaming something poorly done on the previous administration would seem to be a tad disengenuous to me. it would be like Bush 41, when he was president, blaming a bad policy on the prior administration; well dude, you were kind of there, weren't you?

I think McGuirk has been a part of the power structure there for many, many years, and him blaming something poorly done on the previous administration would seem to be a tad disengenuous to me.

It is. McGuirk has been with Ted Turner since the 70s and was CEO of TBS from after the Time Warner merger until 2001. To his credit, he's not exactly bad-mouthing the deal; he's simply pointing out that the market has changed since the deal was done.

-- MWE

As was suggested in the What the Hell Are the Red Sox Doing? thread, there is a perception of under-reaction to Atlanta's 2011 collapse (which became a nice story for the Cardinals in the same way that San Diego's 2010's bellyflop was spun into Giants gold, and we all love a nice story, don't we?) when in fact the Braves are maddeningly steady as she goes.

Yes, some more stimulating additions to the bench and a LF upgrade would have been quite welcome, both as empirical improvement and evidence of awareness that the NL East title is far from a done deal. Another front office might have pounced on opportunities to flip a young cost-controlled pitcher for magic beans and/or a veteran position player, given how that standard firmed up this winter. The Braves have been active in mid-season trades, though, and might have another Bourn-like bullet in their gun this summer. More likely is that 2012/2013 is the last go-round for the core. Larry Wayne Jr will play as long as he cares to, we all know that. 2013 is a fine pull-date prediction, coinciding with the replacements of Hudson and McCann by younger versions. Bourn won't be retained, so new CF options are welcome; where they will come from, well, I guess that's why we stay tuned.

Now, if ownership is proclaiming austerity as a consequence of its own inability (as a media conglomerate, after all) to pick the winning side in the broadcast rights war, that's not very encouraging. What exactly is a discerning fan to make of such an announcement?

To his credit, he's not exactly bad-mouthing the deal; he's simply pointing out that the market has changed since the deal was done.

Good point, but it really makes one wonder what people in the media business were thinking to lock in a deal in such an evolving market for 25 years, but then again, we are talking about the people who, at least at the time, reported the largest annual loss ever, in the history of corporate America.

Now, if ownership is proclaiming austerity as a consequence of its own inability (as a media conglomerate, after all) to pick the winning side in the broadcast rights war, that's not very encouraging. What exactly is a discerning fan to make of such an announcement?

Quoted for emphasis.

The deal is either nefarious or stupid. That it was completed when Time Warner/Turner still owned the team leads one to consider the former, and the type and number of people required to analyze and sign off on the deal makes it difficult to envision the latter.

Whenever you sign a long term contract you run into this risk.

The Rangers deal could look like a foolish deal for the Rangers in 10 years or it could look like a great deal or an okay deal. If you want somebody to hand you gobs of money then you are going to have to sign away a lot of years.

Plus when the Braves' deal ends they'll be able to negotiate an even better deal than what the Rangers are getting now and it will be the Rangers that will be saying that they have to wade through the 20 year deal to get the good deal.

My initial conspiracy theory after reading this was that TW furtively signed the 25 year deal under the cover of the frantic negotiations prior to the tax break expiration deadline to benefit themselves. However, other than the 40 games per year on Peachtree TV (which they then owned), Fox already owned the TV rights to all of the games. So why would TW try to screw Liberty for Fox's benefit?

More likely, Liberty knew about it and was cool with it. From their standpoint, they locked in their revenue stream long-term, so they can just set payroll at a level that the team doesn't burn cash, and sell whenever is convenient. The perfect asset.

McCoy: the Rangers' tv deal expires in 2030. The Braves tv deal expires in 2032.

2013 is a fine pull-date prediction, coinciding with the replacements of Hudson and McCann by younger versions.

Why are you replacing the best catcher in the league at age 29?

Why are you replacing the best catcher in the league at age 29?

He hits free agent status at that point in time. (mind you I don't really know why you think the Braves have Yadier on the team :) )

Catchers are on average pretty much done at that age, but yes I don't see any reason for someone to think they will get rid of him at that point in time, he's proven himself to be quite durable, and has been the best catcher in baseball over the past six seasons

So why would TW try to screw Liberty for Fox's benefit?

They didn't. The three corporations are very closely tied together. If anything it was probably a favor that had zilch to do with the Atlanta Braves.

The Braves are carried on 4 channels, three of which are RSNs. Fox Sports South and SportSouth are both owned by News Corp, may as well be the same channel. Doing some research, I see that "Peachtree TV" is still partially owned by Time Warner. It's actually a rebranded, re-call lettered WTBS; it's an Atlanta-area over-the-air channel. The Peachtree TV games are carried outside metro Atlanta by CSS, which is that Charter/Comcast co-owned RSN. Liberty's out of the RSN game now but it used to own the RSNs that became ROOT Sports.

Liberty was a spinoff of TCI, which got bought by AT&T, which was spun off into AT&T Broadband, which was purchased by Comcast. Liberty was also bought by AT&T and then spun off again. Liberty also used to own part of Time Warner. I had recalled that the whole reason Liberty acquired the Braves in the first place was that they traded assets with Time Warner.

Morineko: I came to the same conclusion. My point was, I could understand TW negotiating the 2007 agreement out of the view of Liberty if the end result was going to be TW owning the Braves' TV rights for 25 years at a below market deal. But it was Fox, not TW, that benefited, so TW had no reason to be devious. Thus, in all likelihood Liberty knew about it and approved.

The points people have made about supposed media "experts" (TW and Liberty) getting snookered by Fox on the eve of an explosion in the value of these things are good ones. How much could have changed between 2007 and 2010? Obviously, Fox had an idea of what was coming, and was savvy enough to profit from it. Unfortunately, that savvy will come at Braves' fans expense for the next 21 years!

Kyle S: But that's also a problem with the long-term contracts. The TV rights are being sold for ridiculous amounts right now but with the rise of digital distribution, how long is the TV train going to last? The industry is in a giant mess right now.

You've also got to wonder about the profitability of these things. The cable companies would rather buy the content providers than shell out the subscriber fees for the channels. The money in content itself appears to be going away.

My only point is that sitting here and watching the team slowly become the Pirates will be worse, in the long-run, global view of things, than the Rwandan Genocide.

The TV rights are being sold for ridiculous amounts right now but with the rise of digital distribution, how long is the TV train going to last? The industry is in a giant mess right now.

If they lock up the content they have something to sell regardless of what moves there are in distribution channels. When 3D-smell-o-vision arrives, Fox will still be the place to smell the Braves games. I can see the attraction of having that long-term certainty when everything else is in flux.

This is the most depressing article ever.

Yes it is. Man, I miss having a team to follow, but there's just no end in sight.

McGuirk said a $94 million payroll is the maximum amount supported by the Braves’ projected revenue, contending the team will operate at that level with “no profitability, no free cash flow.”

-snip-

But McGuirk said, “We talk all the time, and there’s just no indication whatsoever of a sale. They are very satisfied with the ownership.

"So basically, I think anyone reading this is an idiot who will believe whatever I tell them to believe."

2013 is a fine pull-date prediction, coinciding with the replacements of Hudson and McCann by younger versions.

Why are you replacing the best catcher in the league at age 29?

My aspiration to GM the Braves far surpasses my aptitude to do so. However, Christian Bethancourt projects to be ready for a taste of the big leagues by then. McCann is terrific of course, but the club seems to have made its "proven veteran" investment for the duration in Uggla. By 2013, some decisions about Heyward, Freeman, and the young pitchers will be due as well. There are many worse scenarios than retaining McCann beyond 2013; I just don't believe it's very likely, given the information in this article.

I am at far geographic remove from Atlanta, however. Is there a local sense that McCann is or should be the face of the team going forward? Hometown guy, goofy looking white dude, noble philanthropy -- I can see the appeal.

Coach McGuirk is one of the best animated charachters of all time.

That is all.

Is there a local sense that McCann is or should be the face of the team going forward?

Yes. There are some who still see Chipper as the face of the franchise now, but I think they're a minority. After the season Heyward had I think everyone feels that McCann is the face of the team going forward. A bounce back season by Heyward could change that, but it would have to be a monster year.

McCann is the face of the team *now.* The team's marketing is McCann+Chipper+Hudson and the hope that Heyward and Hanson become the next marketable faces.

I seriously doubt McCann goes. His deal is structured to expire exactly when Chipper and Hudson roll off the books. Unless he demands a gigantic deal, the Braves will keep him and replace Hudson and Jurrjens with one of the 400 starting prospects they have baked out at AAA.

Coach McGuirk is one of the best animated charachters of all time.
Despite the animation itself being pretty lousy. Man, I adore H. Jon Benjamin's voiceover work.

Man, I adore H. Jon Benjamin's voiceover work.

Check out "How To Archer" by Sterling Archer. It's f'in hilarious and impossible to read without hearing H. Jon's voice in your head.