Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: 280 million per year?

  1. #1
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,719
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 566 Times in 370 Posts

    280 million per year?

    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Lighten up Francis....

  2. #2
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    605
    Like
    11
    Liked 23 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

  3. #3
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,081
    Like
    4,537
    Liked 722 Times in 383 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by darin617 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.
    Money may not buy championships, but with the coming disparity in TV revenues, the Twins may be outbid in the free agent market even more than before.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer minn55441's Avatar
    Posts
    512
    Like
    13
    Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by darin617 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.
    I agree, you can only play one player at each position. I usually argue on the side of the importance of the team chemistry, the coaches, etc. However, this is just one revenue stream for them. This will ultimately have to be dealt with. The current system is not set up to handle payroll extremes that the current environment can create. Hopefully they can deal with this issue without causing another work stoppage. I would hate to see us miss another season of baseball.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by darin617 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.
    True, but it without a doubt gives them a huge advantage over other teams in the league.

  6. #6
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,253
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Blog Entries
    1
    Good players win, poor players lose, so money will win out over all.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    798
    Like
    15
    Liked 14 Times in 13 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    It still will take good signings or the ability of super big market clubs to pay the luxury tax without worring about the money. It could happen, but hopefully not.

  8. #8
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,670
    Like
    11
    Liked 54 Times in 35 Posts
    The clubs with the large TV contracts would appear to be making the most regular appearances in the playoffs. Many insist the playoffs are a crapshoot. There stands just a great a chance of the big contract teams winning, Yankees, Philies, Rangers, Angeles as the Giants or Rays

  9. #9
    Senior Member All-Star Jim Crikket's Avatar
    Posts
    1,094
    Like
    15
    Liked 122 Times in 61 Posts
    Blog Entries
    77
    I believe that in Bud Selig's eutopian world, this is exactly what he wants to have happen. In order to maximixe MLB national revenue, he needs to assure that at least one team from one of the mega-markets (NYC, LA, Chicago) is in the World Series every year.To that end, he would prefer that there be Yankees-like franchises in each of those cities. The Dodgers were not going to reach that potential as long as they had an owner who was using team revenues on personal extravagences.

    The problem, of course, is not just the competitive imbalance that results. When you've got more teams willing/able to pay obscene amounts for top players, it eventually drives the market prices (not only free agent prices, but arbitration-awarded salaries) up across the league, forcing everyone to pay inflated salaries. The result will be higher expenses for all teams, which are passed on to fans. It's certainly not difficult to imagine teams like the Twins being soon back in their old situation where they can't even afford to keep their own stars, much less enter the market for other teams' free agents. As has been the case, it just makes it more critical that they have an outstanding development program.
    I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at Knuckleballsblog.com while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for MetroSportsReport.com.

    ~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~

  10. #10
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    605
    Like
    11
    Liked 23 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by acrozelle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darin617 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.
    True, but it without a doubt gives them a huge advantage over other teams in the league.
    Don't worry people, New York, Boston and the other larger markets will make sure this is dealt with so they can keep their advantages.

  11. #11
    Senior Member All-Star Boom Boom's Avatar
    Posts
    1,091
    Like
    10
    Liked 214 Times in 100 Posts
    The Twins could have had more TV revenue but they wouldn't play ball with the cable providers when they launched Victory Sports.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    438
    Like
    0
    Liked 42 Times in 31 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    I don't know what Bud Selig might want but it would be difficult to impose much of revenue sharing when it comes to local revenues such as the local or regional tv revenues. Clearly, large market teams aren't going to want to share, and it is probably in the best interests of the players for salary caps not to be imposed. Penalities such as luxury taxes really don't address the extreme differences in revenue between the big market teams and small market teams.

    Unfortunately, it can be said that baseball does seem to generate more national interest when large market teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers advance deep in the playoffs. Larger ratings in the playoffs and the World Series help generate larger national TV contracts which benefit all teams. I doubt if we will any big push to change the system, unless things change to the point where small and mediun size market teams almost never make the playoffs.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Triple-A Teflon's Avatar
    Posts
    229
    Like
    1
    Liked 13 Times in 3 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    I believe the numbers quoted for the Dodgers TV contract is an average over the 25 years of the proposed contract with Fox. These start at a much lower level, however and escalate over time so the Dodgers wouldn't be starting with $280 million the first year. This is assuming a $7 billion dollar deal which would mean Fox just capitulates to the Dodgers demand. Hopefully, there will be some negotiation involved. Also, any MLB payrolls over $180 million (or thereabouts) get hit with the luxury tax which extracts 40% to 50% of the over-spend and redistributes to the rest of the league.

    Still, the Dodgers will have a Yankee-like payroll if they want one, thanks to Fox hoping to become another ESPN. (PS - Fox bought half of YES from the Yankees)
    Last edited by Teflon; 11-26-2012 at 02:33 PM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    877
    Like
    485
    Liked 84 Times in 63 Posts
    Gee, with that kind of TV income, I'll bet they reduce ticket prices by 80%, so someone in the median income bracket can afford to go to a few games each year.

  15. #15
    Senior Member All-Star YourHouseIsMyHouse's Avatar
    Posts
    1,235
    Like
    8
    Liked 17 Times in 12 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10
    I don't want what Bud Selig wants. This will create further imbalance in the MLB. While I don't necessarily think a salary cap is needed, I think they at least need to keep it within some sort of percentile. California has 5 baseball teams already and now a developing superpower? People on the coasts get everything!

  16. #16
    Senior Member Triple-A Danchat's Avatar
    Posts
    432
    Like
    166
    Liked 33 Times in 24 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    If only we could have the nice salary caps and team-friendly contracts like in the NFL....

  17. #17
    Salary caps. Shared revenue. What it ultimately means is more money in the ownership pocket. Unless the Dodgers are only spending 50% of that added income on player salaries. It also means being able to pay more for draft picks, and absorb the penalities.
    Joel Thingvall
    www.thingvall.com
    rosterman at www.twinscards.com

  18. #18
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,719
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 566 Times in 370 Posts
    Shared revenue does not need to mean less money for players....caps do.

    For me the issue is an even playing field. And for me, this revenue disparity in local tv deals is going to hurt big time.

  19. #19
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,866
    Like
    182
    Liked 668 Times in 377 Posts
    I've never understood why any league doesn't pool and divide revenue. It takes so much pressure off the individual franchises to support themselves in inferior markets and the reality is that big markets NEED small markets or else there is no league. The NFL's salary cap could be debated, but I've yet to hear a good case for why all media revenues shouldn't be split equally.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    301
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by darin617 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

    Do you think this is a threat to the game?
    Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.
    I know, they have only won 5 of the last 16, not even 1/3!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.