On The Angels And Mariners And TV And Money
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 9, 2011 1:03 PM PST
in Around Major League Baseball
Email
PrintAll offseason long, temporary John Jaso distraction aside (remember when the Mariners got John Jaso?), it's seemed like all anybody really wanted to talk about was Prince Fielder. Arguments for why the Mariners should get him, arguments for why the Mariners shouldn't get him, ongoing coverage of the nebulous proceedings - Fielder has been the obvious hot topic, and a curiously obvious hot topic if you think about it, since Fielder is just a free agent who could sign with anyone. Mariners fans locked on him early and they've been firing missiles ever since.
So of course, after yesterday's news, the conversation didn't change much. The conversation didn't become about Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson - it became about what Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson mean for the Mariners' pursuit of Prince Fielder. I'm going to be kind of sad whenever Fielder signs because I don't know what there will be to talk about anymore. Unless Fielder signs with the Mariners. This is a stupid exaggeration. There will be plenty to talk about. Okay.
But this post isn't about Prince Fielder. The first two paragraphs were about Prince Fielder, to lure you in, because I'm apparently good at setting traps. But this post is about something else - something that just came to light in the aftermath of the Angels' big Thursday. Where did the Angels get the money to buy two of the market's premier talents? The Angels have had money for a while, but they haven't had money like this, or they hadn't spent that way.
We turn to Bill Shaikin and Kevin Baxter. The two combined to write the linked article, and included in that article is the following note:
The Angels have agreed to a new deal with Fox Sports worth at least $3 billion and expected to cover 20 years, two parties familiar with the deal said Thursday. The parties declined to be identified because the deal has yet to be officially announced.
The Angels and Fox Sports had an agreement worth $500 million over ten years. Arte Moreno apparently opted out and negotiated this new, much more lucrative agreement. The reported terms of the new agreement are in line with the initial reported terms of the Texas Rangers' new agreement, and of course those initial reported terms turned out to be wrong.
I don't know how TV contract money translates to payroll money. I don't think it's as simple as saying the Angels will have $3 billion more to invest in the team over the next 20 years. There are other factors. But a TV contract provides revenue, so a bigger TV contract provides more revenue. The average annual value of the Angels' TV contract apparently just tripled.
That's great news for the Angels, and their fans. It's worse news for the rest of the AL West. A quick round-up of the other division TV deals:
Texas Rangers
The Rangers were said to have agreed to a $3 billion, 20-year deal with Fox Sports Southwest. The actual agreement is worth more like $1.6 billion over 20 years. It kicks in after the 2014 season.
Seattle Mariners
According to Forbes, the Mariners have a $450 million, 10-year deal with FSN Northwest that just started last season. Details are basically impossible to confirm, but there you go.
Oakland Athletics
CSN California broadcasts most A's games as a favor.
If the Angels' figures are correct, their deal blows the Rangers' deal out of the water. It also blows the Mariners' deal out of the water, and I blew the Athletics' deal out of the water when I bought milk at the store. It isn't all about TV contracts, but it looks like the Angels will have this one advantage.
Interestingly, the Angels are not a ratings hit. According to Sports Business Journal, last year the Angels had the second-lowest local TV ratings of all 29 American teams. Things weren't any better the year before. The Mariners, for the sake of comparison, routinely do well. They're worse off now than they've been in the past, for obvious reasons, but from 1996-2003, the Mariners had the highest ratings in all of baseball. There's an audience, and most of the audience is still watching, even though bad, so much bad.
If there's a silver lining to this, it's that the Angels are seemingly committed through 2031 and the Rangers are seemingly committed through 2034, while the Mariners are committed through 2020. The Mariners will be able to renegotiate sooner, and depending on a few factors, their deal could be enormous. It could be the biggest. Inflation and all.
But, man, 2020 is a long ways off. If reports of the Angels' new deal are correct, then congratulations to them, and farts to us. Farts, nothing but farts.
148 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
But wouldn't the network want the Mariners to be good?
It seems like FSN would be willing to restructure the contract to help make the M’s more competitive, because if they M’s are more competitive their ratings will go up.
A related read
from when the Rangers’ news was abuzz.
A lot of the same qualifications probably apply.
The "buy Europe" jokes are funnier now
by Matthew on Dec 9, 2011 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I was cracking up about that, actually. Great call.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 15, 2011 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
An alternative explanation
Mariners fans locked on him early and they’ve been firing missiles ever since.
Either that or the missiles were simply caught in his gravitational pull.
Do you want to hear about my fantasy team?
by Cantu Easley Winn on Dec 9, 2011 1:17 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Mariner fans have the ability to shoot missiles
What don’t you get about that?
He means that Fielder is a star (in the baseball sense)
and stars (in the celestial sense) have a very strong gravitational pull. It’s a play on the term “star”.
RIP Greg Halman
by WhyGodWhy on Dec 9, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Non-contentious point of clarification:
‘Ratings’ relate to the number of television viewers within a market. The Mariners tend to score very well on the basis of attracting a percentage of that base—thus, in once sense, it might be accurate to say that we once had the ‘highest ratings’.
But comparing ‘ratings’ across markets is depressing, because there are so many more people available to watch television in places like New York and LA. That’s why a ratings point to advertisers there is worth so much more…and thus, why the television contracts can be so much larger.
Market sizes differ
Arbitron ranks populations in metropolitan areas among people 12 and older:
New York 15.5m
LA 10.7m
DFW 5.26m
Seattle 3.5m
We're still ranked 13th...
and look at these markets with MLB teams:
Milwaukee 1.47MM
Kansas City 1.64MM
Cleveland 1.76MM
Cincinnati 1.77MM
Pittsburgh 1.99MM
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Dec 9, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
and more importantly...
consistently competitive STL – 2.31MM
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Dec 9, 2011 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
But they had Pujols.
Anyone can stay competitive with Pujols for 10 years… Fuck.
Would the fact we're the only NW team give us a bigger market?
I think that m’s games are broadcasted in Vancouver, Portland, Anchorage and their surrounding areas. Shouldn’t that give us a bigger tv market?
by twoodard on Dec 9, 2011 4:34 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not as far as many advertisers are concerned
Vancouver people aren’t going to be buying cars from Seattle-area dealerships, for example, and there aren’t any Banner Bank branches in Anchorage (it may be true “we’re all connected” but not to that degree). The national chains like Taco Bell may care, but they’ve undoubtedly already factored that in.
Besides, only a handful of M’s games are broadcast on Rogers Sportsnet Pacific, which is what the folks in the lower mainland and on the Island get on basic cable.
Root does break itself up a little bit. In the past they've shown Timbers games for the Portland area but not for the Seattle area.
They can make it work with locally-targeted advertising.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Dec 11, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Evidence of this?
They’re worse off now than they’ve been in the past, for obvious reasons, but from 1996-2003, the Mariners had the highest ratings in all of baseball. There’s an audience, and most of the audience is still watching, even though bad, so much bad.
Please provide some sort of proof, figure, or data point. Or, is the logic behind this that if they are not at SafeCo, they are watching on TV? I’d imagine that most people are like me and can’t stoamch 95-100 loss seasons.
The article linked below doesn't back up the claim that the Mariners were 1st each year, but it does say there were in the top 3.
Also, here is an article from Forbes that shows the 2010 ratings at #9 as well. I doubt 2011 saw the ratings take a huge nosedive.
No matter where you go, there you are.
No problem.
No matter where you go, there you are.
That's good to know.
Can you cite your sources backing up this?
by Matthew on Dec 9, 2011 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 23 recs
Yeah and I stand by it
I don’t like the way this team is run from the ownership, to the brass, to the GM.
This would most likely be a good place to stop replying.
Just trying to help.
Brett Gleason | Twitter | Sports Minds Blog | Daily Evergreen
by Brett the 49er on Dec 9, 2011 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 8 recs
That really doesn't back up what you claimed in that post.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Just a friendly hint
Results-based analysis doesn’t really work here.
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
That back up the claim, "The Mariners have been bad recently."
It doesn’t really back up anything you claimed in your post.
The Pirates spend about 36-40 million a year
and they are proftiable. They have kept this trend up for years.
The Mariners are kind of the same beast, though yes they do spend a lot more because of their market size. They are just doing what they can to be in the black financially and by sparking fans interest with gimmicks and a couple of non expendable stars they can advertise. I don’t see them as taking any chances or really being assertive to change their performance. They are just a subsidiary of Nintendo trying to turn a buck for Hiroshi.
These are still not sources
...and now I'm here
I believe he is citing "Pullmaniac" as found on lookoutlanding.com.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
Prove it.
No, seriously. Prove it. You obviously believe what you believe, but ‘round these parts that ain’t enough. How do you know these things?
Citing W-L records is not proof.
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
I would point to teams like the Phillies
for example, you had a team spending around what the Mariners were in 2007. They made the playoffs and won the Series and have decided to never look back. They decided to make winning their product and they have given the GM the money he needs to do what he needs to do every year. They can pack CBP without giving away fly swatters and compost bags and they don’t need the Yankees to come to town.
These are not sources.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 9, 2011 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Still not proof
Your original contention was:
The Mariners already have their show ponies in Felix and Ichiro, they are not going to sign anyone else of note until they lose their billboard faces. The Mariners are one big marketing scheme, commercials and bobble-head giveaways.
Which you then pointed to W-L records to prove, which people called bullshit on, because it was in fact bullshit. Now you’re saying that unlimited money equals WS success, which still does nothing to prove your point which is that the Mariners are “one big marketing scheme”.
I want you to provide proof for your assertion that the M’s are run as a commercial for MLB. If you cannot do so, it’s probably best for you to stop talking about it.
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Since 1977, but what does that have to do with your claims?
No matter where you go, there you are.
What are they?
They are an expansion team and expansion teams are to spread the MLB market. They are simply holding down the MLB market here in the PNW.
Almost every team was an expansion team at some point
that still does nothing to prove your point.
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
Plus your argument makes no sense
“holding down the MLB market”…for what? Expansion to Spokane?
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
So MLB has no interest in seeing teams outside the original 16 teams be successful?
No matter where you go, there you are.
I knew there was a cabal I just didn't know its parameters!
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Have you ever seen Bud Selig and the Mariners' owner in the same place?
Something to think about….
No matter where you go, there you are.
HE ALSO STOLE THE PILOTS.....IT ALL MAKES SENSE
No matter where you go, there you are.
The Cougars are just holding down the NCAA market in Eastern Washington.
See how little sense this makes!
So if they're only here to get interest in MLB wouldn't they have been signing superstars the whole time?
Seems you’d get a lot more interest and help the MLB brand in the Northwest by showcasing the best of the best.
I understand your frustration but you’re sounding pretty tin-foilly to me.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
They're also in a giant city (compared to Seattle) and have a long history (also compared to the Mariners).
I’m pretty sure they’ve always had good attendance. Could be wrong but my friends from Philly always complain about Mariners fans not “sticking with them”.
Regardless comparing one team to another is interesting but at the end of the day that’s all it is.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Wrong I lived in Philly and remember going to games at the Vet with less than 10K
Philly is fair weathered and they got interested when the mariners started winning.
I'm assuming you mean Phillies. Regardless, you still can't compare the two.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
This is where salary comparisons get silly.
If you and have both have 20 one dollar scratch tickets, we’re on equal ground until we start scratching. We both head off on totally different paths. I could write all the scenarios but I’m lazy. But I hope you get the point.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
True, obviously Pat Gillick had some doing in getting Philly on track
but again you have to look at the choice of the organization to bring somebody in to get it done.
You mean the same Pat Gillick that used to work for the Mariners?
That Pat Gillick?
THE CONSPIRACY IS BECOMING CLEARER
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
You were claiming that Pat Gillick helped get the Phillies on the winning track
Pat Gillick used to work for the Mariners, who you previously claimed only existed for some sort of marketing reason or as a placeholder. So either Pat Gillick learned his job in Seattle and applied his knowledge in Philly or MLB knew Gillick was going to make Seattle a good team and engineered a move to Philly, right?
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Gillick is in on it too?
Wait, Z was hired on with the Brewers when Selig still had a hand in the team….holy shit!
No matter where you go, there you are.
To continue this very lame analogy but seems we're talking money and it's relationship to risk.
Most of the successful teams in MLB have great farm systems. Let’s think of them as a boring but safe investment like a bond, whereas your FAs are scratch tickets. The issue for the Mariners for the last decade is they only invested in tickets or traded their bonds for scratch tickets. Wouldn’t want to invest in that firm but it is exciting to watch it’s numbers go all over the place.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:54 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
he was saying that the Vet was a horrible place to go watch a baseball game
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I see
yeah I think it was the last cookie cutter to go. It was bad, but by the time I was there is was nostalgic or something because all the other ones were gone.
Go check out Oakland.
It’s not as cookie-cutter, but damn if that thing ain’t the Kingdome without a roof.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Dec 9, 2011 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
Busch Stadium II was the last cookie cutter to go.
Unless you coun’t the still used the Rogers Centre/SkyDome. (which I do)
by sofa_king on Dec 9, 2011 3:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Then they were in that awkward stage of mid-80s wins and 2nd place.
I remember growing up the Phillies were one of the worst teams consistently and I’m sure people were wary about going back to them.
Citation needed.
Oh, wait….
Year Tm W L Attend/G Rank
1996 Philadelphia Phillies 67 95 22243 9th of 14
1995 Philadelphia Phillies 69 75 28383 4th of 14
1994 Philadelphia Phillies 54 61 38183 4th of 14
1993 Philadelphia Phillies 97 65 38737 4th of 14
1992 Philadelphia Phillies 70 92 23796 6th of 12
1991 Philadelphia Phillies 78 84 24699 7th of 12
1990 Philadelphia Phillies 77 85 24599 7th of 12
1989 Philadelphia Phillies 67 95 22987 8th of 12
1988 Philadelphia Phillies 65 96 24568 6th of 12
1987 Philadelphia Phillies 80 82 25927 5th of 12
1986 Philadelphia Phillies 86 75 24167 4th of 12
1985 Philadelphia Phillies 75 87 22597 7th of 12
1984 Philadelphia Phillies 81 81 25465 3rd of 12
1983 Philadelphia Phillies 90 72 25955 5th of 12
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/9/2011.
Such a fast and far fall after the ’83 playoff loss!
by Matthew on Dec 9, 2011 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I assumed you meant attendance given that would be the logical point to consider
of your statement
Wrong I lived in Philly and remember going to games at the Vet with less than 10K. Philly is fair weathered and they got interested when the mariners started winning.
How presumptuous of me to apply direct testing.
Ergo why I provided a chart showing little to no change in attendance
despite a pretty shitty stretch run of records
That doesn't look like proof to me.
I’d be more convinced if you just said “Trust me.”
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 9, 2011 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
Not a single mention of 'nuff said, either.
Honestly, Matthew, if nuff doesn’t say it, it’s just not real proof.
...and now I'm here
I'm not sure I understand this line of thought.
How are these Phillies that much different than the early aughts Mariners? They haven’t gotten old yet or something?
...
The Pirates spend about 36-40 million a year and they are profitable.
[citation needed]
The Mariners are kind of the same beast,
[citation needed]
They are just doing what they can to be in the black financially
[citation needed for alternate definition of “business” that does not include attempting to be in the black]
and by sparking fans interest with gimmicks and a couple of non expendable stars they can advertise.
[citation needed]
I don’t see them as taking any chances or really being assertive to change their performance.
[citation needed]
[proof of knowledge of GM-to-GM or front-office-to-front-office discussion needed]
They are just a subsidiary of Nintendo
trying to turn a buck for Hiroshi.
[moderator needed, troll cited, jesus h. christ go back to Baker’s blog where they enjoy this sort of nonsense]
by Chris_FB on Dec 9, 2011 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 16 recs
I was just trying to back up Jeff's article...I didn't realize what I was starting!
No matter where you go, there you are.
My apologies.
I love this site due to the organic way it is troll free. Probably due to cool heads, good arguements and people following the very simple rules.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 2:44 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Please tell me you only went to Wazzu for like half-a-semester.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 9, 2011 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
Mike Leach will get out the riff-raff I promise.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 9, 2011 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
Now I see the the Pullman reference
Up until now I thought it was something about masturbation
by Kermit. on Dec 9, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 9 recs
UW is winning the AppLLe Cup.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 9, 2011 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Us Greeners continue to sneak by.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 3:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
wazzumad and pullmaniac come in at the end of the year with excruciatingly poor performances to remove all doubt.
UW wins the 2011 AppLLe Cup.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Wazzumad was very 4chan and I don't see how a 4chan person could refrain from using 4chan references.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 9, 2011 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
I would guess Reddit, but they're just different flavors of shitstick.
by Eyebrows on Dec 9, 2011 3:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Really? You had a bunch of people engage you in your arguement and you call that awful?
There’s this place called everywhere-else-in-the-Internet. I can’t cite it all but I’d say it’s good proof that LL is far from awful.
by sea-townie on Dec 9, 2011 3:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
"Flat-out awful" describes you as a commenter at the moment.
I think everyone would appreciate it if you would make an honest effort to improve. I recommend you start with learning the concept of “providing sources and evidence” to support your views. Your experience here will be much better unless your main intent is to troll.
by ThundaPC on Dec 9, 2011 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
1994 49 wins
HOLY SHIT ONLY 49 WINS!
They had Griffey and Randy and they only won 49 games that year!
Clearly ownership had decided to show off it’s ponies and collect paychecks; there is no other explanation to this terribly low win total than this team had than a mass ownership conspiracy to not try to win.
by themanleyman on Dec 9, 2011 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I went to a lot of games in 1994
I got so, so tired of being shown off that year!
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
It was also clearly in the best interests of the ownership in 94
not to play any home games after mid-July.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Dec 9, 2011 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
The Expos lead the Majors with 74 wins in '94. Hello strike shortened year!
49 wins is not putting it in the right perspective. We were also the hottest team in the AL West (citation needed) going into the strike.
by sofa_king on Dec 9, 2011 3:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'm a stickler about spelling
and it’s Safeco, not SafeCo.
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
2020 is indeed a long time off.
Nine years ago I was confident the M’s would make it to the World Series coming off 2001’s 116 win season.
WAY OFF TOPIC
Does anyone have a gif of Chone trying to fight Wakamatsu?
by LonelyintheBleachers on Dec 9, 2011 3:01 PM PST reply actions
there ain't one up right now
I’ll go put one up in a second…
by pdb on Dec 9, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I see...
I thought you meant the gif
by LonelyintheBleachers on Dec 9, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
Don't look now but
…lots of buzz on an A’s/D-Backs deal. At least they got something to talk about !
I sort of like the idea of being a small-market team
It definitely lowers our chances of contention, but now we are even more underdogs! Go underdogs!
Buster Olney on the radio.
[paraphrasing] “The Mariners really want Prince Fielder but I can’t imagine Scott Boras is going to let him go there when you have the AL West version of the Yankees/Red Sox ramping up and the Rangers have to do something after their division rival goes out and adds a bat and an arm”
That.... Doesn't sound like something Scott Boras would care about at all
by Patrick Stites on Dec 10, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
The only thing that comes to mind when thinking about Boras...
…Is Cartman from the Southpark episode when he wins $20 from Kyle in a bet (I think it was crapping out your mouth).
“Yeeees, Kyle’s money” etc.
by Aussie Mariner on Dec 10, 2011 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
