I find the Gio Gonzalez situation really bizarre, and not just because the Pirates did not sign him.
Gonzalez had 1.8 WAR last year, and pitched well for the Brewers in a pennant race down the stretch after they acquired him from the Nationals.
He is still only 33 and is not a Bartolo Colon clone.
If a team signed him he did not require a compensatory pick.
He is a left-hander.
While his WHIP is getting a bit high and there is not that much differential between his strike-out rate and walk rate, about 7 to 4, he has still demonstrated an ability to take the ball every 5th day and to regularly keep his team in the game.
While I am certain that his initial asking price was quite a bit higher (MLB Trade Rumors projected a 2 year deal at $12 mil/year), he certainly doesn't seem like a pitcher who had to accept a minor league offering, and didn't even receive that until March 18.
Many teams seem to be crying for starting pitching and could easily have absorbed a salary equal or greater than the Yankees offer.
And, more specifically to the Pirates, why couldn't they have offered him $5 mil per season on a 1 year deal and inserted him as a 5th starter. Lyles and Kingham could be used as cheap multi-inning relievers in the pen. They may not have needed to sign Liriano who will be due $1.8 mil or so if the Bucs sign him, and that is before he reaches any incentives.
On its face, the Gonzalez situation makes little sense.
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
716C484A44210 wrote: No doubt they would have had to offer more than $3 million though. Let’s face reality...if the Pirates and Yankees each offer the same contract, guys aren't signing with the Pirates. That’s the just rewards of 20 straight years of losing and clearly not having a commitment to putting the best team on the field. I hate the Yankees. But there’s no doubt they put the best team on the field each year.
Regarding salaries, this is the natural consequence of advanced analytics. Every team now knows that with relatively few exceptions, they can get the same or nearly the same production from younger, cheaper, players.
The next CBA could be a disaster for the Bucs. I can definitely see something happening like doing away with the arbitration process and moving to some type of restricted free agency. Can any of us honestly see the Bucs matching a contract offer for an elite player? I can’t. Think 2012 Andrew McCutchen...the Red Sox offer him 10 years, $120 million. No way the Bucs match that. No way.
On the plus side, maybe a new CBA will force Nutting to sell the team.
There is a lot of good stuff here, IA.
On paper, this Gonzalez signing is really embarrassing for the Pirates. I hope that Gonzalez just wasn't willing to sign with the Pirates for any amount. It would have easily been worth it to pay him twice that much for two years with a MLB contract. This isn't just on the Pirates. How many other teams could have used a solid SP for $3 million dollars. That's pennies. How did he wind up with the Yankees on a minor league deal. This is really strange.
The line that I bolded has been true for a number of teams for awhile. I actually think the Pirates were one of the first teams to operate this way. Finances forced them to do it, but they still backed it with analytics. This is a big shift in baseball when the Yankees are doing it too, with their resources.
Your last paragraph is most indicting and it has me concerned for the future of baseball. The players are really angry. There will be a change in entry level contracts and arbitration. Any change will really punish the Pirates and many other teams. Baseball will be hurt badly if there isn't a subsequent revenue sharing model introduced similar to other sports.
Exactly. The economics of baseball are broken. It's going to take drastic, and I mean drastic, changes from both sides to fix it. I'm not talking little tweaks here and there like adding a 26th man, or even (Lord help us...) bringing the DH to the National League. I think the days of big FA contracts are over, aside from the truly elite players (e.g. Harper and Machado). But even those two guys got their contracts well after the start of Spring Training. Former Cy Young winner Dallas Keuchel is still sitting out there unsigned.
My best guess...the next CBA is going to see an end to arbitration and a move to restricted free agency. I suspect we'll also see the end of the Super 2 process and that a player's first year in MLB, regardless of when it starts, will count as "year 1" and that unrestricted free agency will happen sooner, perhaps after year 6, but maybe as early as year 4. I could also see doing away with the luxury tax.
In short, unless MLB also brings in comparable revenue sharing, and some type of salary cap/floor, they are going to have the real life professional sports version of the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Over time, this is going to continually decrease the fanbases of the have-nots (e.g. Pittsbugh, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Miami, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc.)
MLB has a major, major problem on their hands, whether they realize it or not. The players are mad, the owners are happy, but the owners need the players to keep raking in their millions. The owners are fractioned between the big and small markets. Right now, there is relative peace as the Steinbrenner's and the Nutting's both are making a killing, regardless of their respective efforts to field competitive teams. However, with a new CBA, that could all change.
How much is AT&T Sports going to seriously offer in a bid to broadcast Pirates games if the team's lack of effort, coupled with near impossible hurdles imposed by MLB and the CBA, make it a virtual certainty that the Bucs will not be competitive? The value of that TV contract is inherently tied to the number of viewers watching at any given time. Otherwise, why would a company purchase ad time? Short answer...they wouldn't. And it all trickles down.
If the team stinks, people don't watch. If people don't watch, companies don't advertise. If companies don't advertise, the network won't pay the teams. If the network won't pay the teams, the team stinks. It's a vicious circle, but yet, one element in this circle has a direct ability to influence the rest of the circle, and that's the team. The teams that are willing to take risks and invest in their onfield product, bring in bigger profits. It's really a very simple formula.
Regarding salaries, this is the natural consequence of advanced analytics. Every team now knows that with relatively few exceptions, they can get the same or nearly the same production from younger, cheaper, players.
The next CBA could be a disaster for the Bucs. I can definitely see something happening like doing away with the arbitration process and moving to some type of restricted free agency. Can any of us honestly see the Bucs matching a contract offer for an elite player? I can’t. Think 2012 Andrew McCutchen...the Red Sox offer him 10 years, $120 million. No way the Bucs match that. No way.
On the plus side, maybe a new CBA will force Nutting to sell the team.
There is a lot of good stuff here, IA.
On paper, this Gonzalez signing is really embarrassing for the Pirates. I hope that Gonzalez just wasn't willing to sign with the Pirates for any amount. It would have easily been worth it to pay him twice that much for two years with a MLB contract. This isn't just on the Pirates. How many other teams could have used a solid SP for $3 million dollars. That's pennies. How did he wind up with the Yankees on a minor league deal. This is really strange.
The line that I bolded has been true for a number of teams for awhile. I actually think the Pirates were one of the first teams to operate this way. Finances forced them to do it, but they still backed it with analytics. This is a big shift in baseball when the Yankees are doing it too, with their resources.
Your last paragraph is most indicting and it has me concerned for the future of baseball. The players are really angry. There will be a change in entry level contracts and arbitration. Any change will really punish the Pirates and many other teams. Baseball will be hurt badly if there isn't a subsequent revenue sharing model introduced similar to other sports.
Exactly. The economics of baseball are broken. It's going to take drastic, and I mean drastic, changes from both sides to fix it. I'm not talking little tweaks here and there like adding a 26th man, or even (Lord help us...) bringing the DH to the National League. I think the days of big FA contracts are over, aside from the truly elite players (e.g. Harper and Machado). But even those two guys got their contracts well after the start of Spring Training. Former Cy Young winner Dallas Keuchel is still sitting out there unsigned.
My best guess...the next CBA is going to see an end to arbitration and a move to restricted free agency. I suspect we'll also see the end of the Super 2 process and that a player's first year in MLB, regardless of when it starts, will count as "year 1" and that unrestricted free agency will happen sooner, perhaps after year 6, but maybe as early as year 4. I could also see doing away with the luxury tax.
In short, unless MLB also brings in comparable revenue sharing, and some type of salary cap/floor, they are going to have the real life professional sports version of the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Over time, this is going to continually decrease the fanbases of the have-nots (e.g. Pittsbugh, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Miami, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc.)
MLB has a major, major problem on their hands, whether they realize it or not. The players are mad, the owners are happy, but the owners need the players to keep raking in their millions. The owners are fractioned between the big and small markets. Right now, there is relative peace as the Steinbrenner's and the Nutting's both are making a killing, regardless of their respective efforts to field competitive teams. However, with a new CBA, that could all change.
How much is AT&T Sports going to seriously offer in a bid to broadcast Pirates games if the team's lack of effort, coupled with near impossible hurdles imposed by MLB and the CBA, make it a virtual certainty that the Bucs will not be competitive? The value of that TV contract is inherently tied to the number of viewers watching at any given time. Otherwise, why would a company purchase ad time? Short answer...they wouldn't. And it all trickles down.
If the team stinks, people don't watch. If people don't watch, companies don't advertise. If companies don't advertise, the network won't pay the teams. If the network won't pay the teams, the team stinks. It's a vicious circle, but yet, one element in this circle has a direct ability to influence the rest of the circle, and that's the team. The teams that are willing to take risks and invest in their onfield product, bring in bigger profits. It's really a very simple formula.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
60686B5C4A6F4847290 wrote: No doubt they would have had to offer more than $3 million though. Let’s face reality...if the Pirates and Yankees each offer the same contract, guys aren't signing with the Pirates. That’s the just rewards of 20 straight years of losing and clearly not having a commitment to putting the best team on the field. I hate the Yankees. But there’s no doubt they put the best team on the field each year.
Regarding salaries, this is the natural consequence of advanced analytics. Every team now knows that with relatively few exceptions, they can get the same or nearly the same production from younger, cheaper, players.
The next CBA could be a disaster for the Bucs. I can definitely see something happening like doing away with the arbitration process and moving to some type of restricted free agency. Can any of us honestly see the Bucs matching a contract offer for an elite player? I can’t. Think 2012 Andrew McCutchen...the Red Sox offer him 10 years, $120 million. No way the Bucs match that. No way.
On the plus side, maybe a new CBA will force Nutting to sell the team.
There is a lot of good stuff here, IA.
On paper, this Gonzalez signing is really embarrassing for the Pirates. I hope that Gonzalez just wasn't willing to sign with the Pirates for any amount. It would have easily been worth it to pay him twice that much for two years with a MLB contract. This isn't just on the Pirates. How many other teams could have used a solid SP for $3 million dollars. That's pennies. How did he wind up with the Yankees on a minor league deal. This is really strange.
The line that I bolded has been true for a number of teams for awhile. I actually think the Pirates were one of the first teams to operate this way. Finances forced them to do it, but they still backed it with analytics. This is a big shift in baseball when the Yankees are doing it too, with their resources.
Your last paragraph is most indicting and it has me concerned for the future of baseball. The players are really angry. There will be a change in entry level contracts and arbitration. Any change will really punish the Pirates and many other teams. Baseball will be hurt badly if there isn't a subsequent revenue sharing model introduced similar to other sports.
Exactly. The economics of baseball are broken. It's going to take drastic, and I mean drastic, changes from both sides to fix it. I'm not talking little tweaks here and there like adding a 26th man, or even (Lord help us...) bringing the DH to the National League. I think the days of big FA contracts are over, aside from the truly elite players (e.g. Harper and Machado). But even those two guys got their contracts well after the start of Spring Training. Former Cy Young winner Dallas Keuchel is still sitting out there unsigned.
My best guess...the next CBA is going to see an end to arbitration and a move to restricted free agency. I suspect we'll also see the end of the Super 2 process and that a player's first year in MLB, regardless of when it starts, will count as "year 1" and that unrestricted free agency will happen sooner, perhaps after year 6, but maybe as early as year 4. I could also see doing away with the luxury tax.
In short, unless MLB also brings in comparable revenue sharing, and some type of salary cap/floor, they are going to have the real life professional sports version of the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Over time, this is going to continually decrease the fanbases of the have-nots (e.g. Pittsbugh, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Miami, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc.)
MLB has a major, major problem on their hands, whether they realize it or not. The players are mad, the owners are happy, but the owners need the players to keep raking in their millions. The owners are fractioned between the big and small markets. Right now, there is relative peace as the Steinbrenner's and the Nutting's both are making a killing, regardless of their respective efforts to field competitive teams. However, with a new CBA, that could all change.
How much is AT&T Sports going to seriously offer in a bid to broadcast Pirates games if the team's lack of effort, coupled with near impossible hurdles imposed by MLB and the CBA, make it a virtual certainty that the Bucs will not be competitive? The value of that TV contract is inherently tied to the number of viewers watching at any given time. Otherwise, why would a company purchase ad time? Short answer...they wouldn't. And it all trickles down.
If the team stinks, people don't watch. If people don't watch, companies don't advertise. If companies don't advertise, the network won't pay the teams. If the network won't pay the teams, the team stinks. It's a vicious circle, but yet, one element in this circle has a direct ability to influence the rest of the circle, and that's the team. The teams that are willing to take risks and invest in their onfield product, bring in bigger profits. It's really a very simple formula.
I A great post. The system is very broken. It sounds like Mike Trout is going to sign a 12 year contract for excess of 430 million dollars. The big stars are getting large money, put the middle of the road players such as a Josh Harrison got like 2.5 million. The next CBA the players are going to attempt to eliminate arbitration, or negotiate an earlier free agent period in order that players can receive higher salaries during their younger years. If the players begin to receive larger salaries during their earlier years of service owners will pass these additional costs onto their paying customers. Baseball could begin to price the family of 4 or 5 out of seeing a game. This upcoming CBA is going to be a battle because the players are going to battle the owners and the large market owners and going to be fighting against the small market owners. Hopefully if the players gain some leverage on free agency or arbitration the owners agree to some type of ceiling or floor with regards to salary.
Regarding salaries, this is the natural consequence of advanced analytics. Every team now knows that with relatively few exceptions, they can get the same or nearly the same production from younger, cheaper, players.
The next CBA could be a disaster for the Bucs. I can definitely see something happening like doing away with the arbitration process and moving to some type of restricted free agency. Can any of us honestly see the Bucs matching a contract offer for an elite player? I can’t. Think 2012 Andrew McCutchen...the Red Sox offer him 10 years, $120 million. No way the Bucs match that. No way.
On the plus side, maybe a new CBA will force Nutting to sell the team.
There is a lot of good stuff here, IA.
On paper, this Gonzalez signing is really embarrassing for the Pirates. I hope that Gonzalez just wasn't willing to sign with the Pirates for any amount. It would have easily been worth it to pay him twice that much for two years with a MLB contract. This isn't just on the Pirates. How many other teams could have used a solid SP for $3 million dollars. That's pennies. How did he wind up with the Yankees on a minor league deal. This is really strange.
The line that I bolded has been true for a number of teams for awhile. I actually think the Pirates were one of the first teams to operate this way. Finances forced them to do it, but they still backed it with analytics. This is a big shift in baseball when the Yankees are doing it too, with their resources.
Your last paragraph is most indicting and it has me concerned for the future of baseball. The players are really angry. There will be a change in entry level contracts and arbitration. Any change will really punish the Pirates and many other teams. Baseball will be hurt badly if there isn't a subsequent revenue sharing model introduced similar to other sports.
Exactly. The economics of baseball are broken. It's going to take drastic, and I mean drastic, changes from both sides to fix it. I'm not talking little tweaks here and there like adding a 26th man, or even (Lord help us...) bringing the DH to the National League. I think the days of big FA contracts are over, aside from the truly elite players (e.g. Harper and Machado). But even those two guys got their contracts well after the start of Spring Training. Former Cy Young winner Dallas Keuchel is still sitting out there unsigned.
My best guess...the next CBA is going to see an end to arbitration and a move to restricted free agency. I suspect we'll also see the end of the Super 2 process and that a player's first year in MLB, regardless of when it starts, will count as "year 1" and that unrestricted free agency will happen sooner, perhaps after year 6, but maybe as early as year 4. I could also see doing away with the luxury tax.
In short, unless MLB also brings in comparable revenue sharing, and some type of salary cap/floor, they are going to have the real life professional sports version of the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Over time, this is going to continually decrease the fanbases of the have-nots (e.g. Pittsbugh, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Miami, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc.)
MLB has a major, major problem on their hands, whether they realize it or not. The players are mad, the owners are happy, but the owners need the players to keep raking in their millions. The owners are fractioned between the big and small markets. Right now, there is relative peace as the Steinbrenner's and the Nutting's both are making a killing, regardless of their respective efforts to field competitive teams. However, with a new CBA, that could all change.
How much is AT&T Sports going to seriously offer in a bid to broadcast Pirates games if the team's lack of effort, coupled with near impossible hurdles imposed by MLB and the CBA, make it a virtual certainty that the Bucs will not be competitive? The value of that TV contract is inherently tied to the number of viewers watching at any given time. Otherwise, why would a company purchase ad time? Short answer...they wouldn't. And it all trickles down.
If the team stinks, people don't watch. If people don't watch, companies don't advertise. If companies don't advertise, the network won't pay the teams. If the network won't pay the teams, the team stinks. It's a vicious circle, but yet, one element in this circle has a direct ability to influence the rest of the circle, and that's the team. The teams that are willing to take risks and invest in their onfield product, bring in bigger profits. It's really a very simple formula.
I A great post. The system is very broken. It sounds like Mike Trout is going to sign a 12 year contract for excess of 430 million dollars. The big stars are getting large money, put the middle of the road players such as a Josh Harrison got like 2.5 million. The next CBA the players are going to attempt to eliminate arbitration, or negotiate an earlier free agent period in order that players can receive higher salaries during their younger years. If the players begin to receive larger salaries during their earlier years of service owners will pass these additional costs onto their paying customers. Baseball could begin to price the family of 4 or 5 out of seeing a game. This upcoming CBA is going to be a battle because the players are going to battle the owners and the large market owners and going to be fighting against the small market owners. Hopefully if the players gain some leverage on free agency or arbitration the owners agree to some type of ceiling or floor with regards to salary.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
Yeah it seems like the union in the past was more interested in contracts for the stars rather than the rank-and-file. Which is traditionally exactly what unions were against. Hopefully (yeah right) they'd be for some kind of mechanism that gets the average player more money at the expense of the high rollers.
It's been interesting reading about the new move to increase pay for minor league players. Some of those guys make literally minimum wage or less when you think about it.
It's been interesting reading about the new move to increase pay for minor league players. Some of those guys make literally minimum wage or less when you think about it.
-
Bobster21
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
The Gonzalez deal appears to be loaded with incentives including $300,000 per start. So if he starts 25 games, that's an additional 7.5 million plus whatever other incentives are there. So this could easily be a 10+ million contract.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/ ... +Rumors%29
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/ ... +Rumors%29
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
That makes more sense.
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
Maybe this will be the new trend in the sport. For awhile, it was opt out clauses. My guess is those fall by the wayside. Why opt out of your contract and back into a market that only sees you as two, three, four years older? Replacing the opt outs may be incentive laden contracts. Professional golfers, for instance, get paid based on performance. Miss the cut...you don't get a check that week. Maybe the rest of the pro sports world should go down this route. Still...$300,000 every time you take the ball. Salaries may be "depressed" but that's six years worth of wages for the average guy working in a factory somewhere. Maybe more than that. The system is broken, but the players aren't going to find much sympathy from Joe and Jane Fan.
Only in the mixed up world of MLB salaries is an AAV of $25,384,615.40 (Bryce Harper's contract) considered a bargain. Only in MLB is "minimum wage" over half a mil a year and guys who make it are considered underpaid. The truth is that the players are extremely well compensated. Not to mention having access to the best health care in the world. World class training facilities. Endorsement deals. Etcetera. But, the system is still broken.
And as one poster rightly pointed out...there are definitely three sides to this: the players, big market owners, and small market owners. Right now, the big and small market owners seem to have an alliance of sorts, but it seems to be unstable. Meaning, both are raking in tens of millions, but that could dry up very, very quickly depending on how this next CBA goes. In that case, my best guess is that the players and big market owners suddenly form an alliance. The big market owners will promise a faster path to FA, no more keeping guys down past Super 2 deadlines, and what not. In return, the players will acquiesce on revenue sharing. The small market owners and teams will thus be screwed.
Baseball is as healthy as it's ever been, but it almost seems like the stock market where everyone is just waiting for the inevitable crash. I feel like MLB has overplayed its hand and it's going to lead to a major crash for the sport.
Only in the mixed up world of MLB salaries is an AAV of $25,384,615.40 (Bryce Harper's contract) considered a bargain. Only in MLB is "minimum wage" over half a mil a year and guys who make it are considered underpaid. The truth is that the players are extremely well compensated. Not to mention having access to the best health care in the world. World class training facilities. Endorsement deals. Etcetera. But, the system is still broken.
And as one poster rightly pointed out...there are definitely three sides to this: the players, big market owners, and small market owners. Right now, the big and small market owners seem to have an alliance of sorts, but it seems to be unstable. Meaning, both are raking in tens of millions, but that could dry up very, very quickly depending on how this next CBA goes. In that case, my best guess is that the players and big market owners suddenly form an alliance. The big market owners will promise a faster path to FA, no more keeping guys down past Super 2 deadlines, and what not. In return, the players will acquiesce on revenue sharing. The small market owners and teams will thus be screwed.
Baseball is as healthy as it's ever been, but it almost seems like the stock market where everyone is just waiting for the inevitable crash. I feel like MLB has overplayed its hand and it's going to lead to a major crash for the sport.
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
794B47475361424B46434C4B2A0 wrote: Yeah it seems like the union in the past was more interested in contracts for the stars rather than the rank-and-file. Which is traditionally exactly what unions were against. Hopefully (yeah right) they'd be for some kind of mechanism that gets the average player more money at the expense of the high rollers.
It's been interesting reading about the new move to increase pay for minor league players. Some of those guys make literally minimum wage or less when you think about it.
Totally agree on MiLB guys. It's borderline criminal what they pay those guys. Some of them have big signing bonuses. But a lot of guys sign for peanuts, especially after the Pirates and Josh Bell blew the whole thing up and they went to hard slotting.
And the guys who really get hosed in this are the Latin players. Most come from impoverished living situations. I speak fluent Spanish and I've spent some time doing missionary work in the Dominican. $10,000 American is literally LIFE CHANGING for those people. MLB comes in riding on a white horse, promising endless riches for these kids and their parents. And in fact, that never comes to fruition. So these kids and their families are left high and dry. The kids go to a foreign country, where they don't know anyone, or the culture, or the language. Their bonus is gone before they can blink, and they go back to the DR or Venezuela, or Mexico, or wherever with nothing. Yeah, there's a few that make it, but the vast, vast majority don't.
This thread is making me seriously question my fandom in MLB. It's almost like I'm supporting a racket.
It's been interesting reading about the new move to increase pay for minor league players. Some of those guys make literally minimum wage or less when you think about it.
Totally agree on MiLB guys. It's borderline criminal what they pay those guys. Some of them have big signing bonuses. But a lot of guys sign for peanuts, especially after the Pirates and Josh Bell blew the whole thing up and they went to hard slotting.
And the guys who really get hosed in this are the Latin players. Most come from impoverished living situations. I speak fluent Spanish and I've spent some time doing missionary work in the Dominican. $10,000 American is literally LIFE CHANGING for those people. MLB comes in riding on a white horse, promising endless riches for these kids and their parents. And in fact, that never comes to fruition. So these kids and their families are left high and dry. The kids go to a foreign country, where they don't know anyone, or the culture, or the language. Their bonus is gone before they can blink, and they go back to the DR or Venezuela, or Mexico, or wherever with nothing. Yeah, there's a few that make it, but the vast, vast majority don't.
This thread is making me seriously question my fandom in MLB. It's almost like I'm supporting a racket.
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
One more thing I was thinking about today...sorry...my mind works this way I guess. MLB has publicly stated that they are trying to market to younger fans, e.g. millennials, Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers. I’m a millennial, just barely. But I qualify! My generation is rapidly cutting cords with cable and satellite and switching to streaming services. This is going to drastically change the TV landscape. For those who may not know, most regional sports networks are heavily subsidized. Here’s how it works:
Let’s say there are a million households (just to use a round number) that subscribe to some service (cable or satellite) that carries ATT Sports. Of those million, on a good day, let’s say that 100,000 are tuned into the Bucs game. That means the other 900,000 people are subsidizing those 100,000 to watch baseball because they are pay the same bill.
In previous generations, the RSNs could get away with their racket because things like Hulu, YouTube Tv, and Netflix didn’t exist. And so grandma may only care about her Lifetime Movie Network, but since it’s bundled in a package that also includes ATT Pittsburgh, she’s going to buy it and pay for it, even if she never watches.
Streaming eliminates that need. This also reduces the number of people subsidizing the relatively few who care about live sports. The RSNs are trying to hold on for dear life, but they have to see the writing on the wall. More and more people are cord cutting, which means less and less are paying for their channels.
This means they can offer less and less to teams to carry their games. Whinch means less revenue, which means smaller contracts.
I’m pretty busy in the evenings, so I don’t get to watch a ton of games. I think I only watched one game last year beginning to end. But, I subscribe to two things...Hulu with live TV, which includes RSNs for the Cards, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Twins, and MLB.tv. So, I can stream all of the Pirates out of market games. I’m still SOL when they play the Brewers, since they’re blacked out here and not on Hulu for some reason, but I digress. Here’s my point...I subscribe to these because I enjoy watching baseball. Most people my age can't stand watching baseball. In the past, this wasn’t a big deal for the RSNs. People were going to subscribe to them regardless in order to get Nickelodeon, or Discovery, or whatever. Now, with so many streaming services, that’s not the case. The millennial who doesn’t care about MLB can get by just fine with a Netflix subscription. No more subsidizing RSNs he never watches.
So, what’s MLB's solution? Try to market the game to millennials and our minuscule attention spans. Eliminate shifts! Make pitchers pitch to three batters! Get rid of the DH! Yeah! These will all make the game more exciting and get more millennials interested! That’s what we need!
Quite on the contrary, MLB. You know what you don’t need? A non-competitive league where half the teams have literally no shot as of Day 1 of Spring Training, either because of MLB's unbalanced economic system, or because they have chosen of their own volition to tank the season. You know what you also need? To get rid of your freaking blackouts! Make it so a Brewers fan in Iowa, can, I don’t know...watch Brewers games in Iowa!!!
I feel like these proposed rule changes and economic “solutions” are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And if anyone knows anything about that, it’s a Pirates fan. The solution isn’t gimmicks. It’s comepetiton. Competition in the TV market place (please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here...streaming services are GREAT for fans...not so much for cable companies). Competition among teams where each team has a chance to win with relative frequency (not every year, mind you, but every team should expect to be competitive with some frequency). Competition for the best players...in the draft, internationally, and for FAs. If MLB wants to fix this, then for Pete's sake, let’s really fix it...not these pointless measures that do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Off rant.
Let’s say there are a million households (just to use a round number) that subscribe to some service (cable or satellite) that carries ATT Sports. Of those million, on a good day, let’s say that 100,000 are tuned into the Bucs game. That means the other 900,000 people are subsidizing those 100,000 to watch baseball because they are pay the same bill.
In previous generations, the RSNs could get away with their racket because things like Hulu, YouTube Tv, and Netflix didn’t exist. And so grandma may only care about her Lifetime Movie Network, but since it’s bundled in a package that also includes ATT Pittsburgh, she’s going to buy it and pay for it, even if she never watches.
Streaming eliminates that need. This also reduces the number of people subsidizing the relatively few who care about live sports. The RSNs are trying to hold on for dear life, but they have to see the writing on the wall. More and more people are cord cutting, which means less and less are paying for their channels.
This means they can offer less and less to teams to carry their games. Whinch means less revenue, which means smaller contracts.
I’m pretty busy in the evenings, so I don’t get to watch a ton of games. I think I only watched one game last year beginning to end. But, I subscribe to two things...Hulu with live TV, which includes RSNs for the Cards, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Twins, and MLB.tv. So, I can stream all of the Pirates out of market games. I’m still SOL when they play the Brewers, since they’re blacked out here and not on Hulu for some reason, but I digress. Here’s my point...I subscribe to these because I enjoy watching baseball. Most people my age can't stand watching baseball. In the past, this wasn’t a big deal for the RSNs. People were going to subscribe to them regardless in order to get Nickelodeon, or Discovery, or whatever. Now, with so many streaming services, that’s not the case. The millennial who doesn’t care about MLB can get by just fine with a Netflix subscription. No more subsidizing RSNs he never watches.
So, what’s MLB's solution? Try to market the game to millennials and our minuscule attention spans. Eliminate shifts! Make pitchers pitch to three batters! Get rid of the DH! Yeah! These will all make the game more exciting and get more millennials interested! That’s what we need!
Quite on the contrary, MLB. You know what you don’t need? A non-competitive league where half the teams have literally no shot as of Day 1 of Spring Training, either because of MLB's unbalanced economic system, or because they have chosen of their own volition to tank the season. You know what you also need? To get rid of your freaking blackouts! Make it so a Brewers fan in Iowa, can, I don’t know...watch Brewers games in Iowa!!!
I feel like these proposed rule changes and economic “solutions” are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And if anyone knows anything about that, it’s a Pirates fan. The solution isn’t gimmicks. It’s comepetiton. Competition in the TV market place (please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here...streaming services are GREAT for fans...not so much for cable companies). Competition among teams where each team has a chance to win with relative frequency (not every year, mind you, but every team should expect to be competitive with some frequency). Competition for the best players...in the draft, internationally, and for FAs. If MLB wants to fix this, then for Pete's sake, let’s really fix it...not these pointless measures that do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Off rant.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Gio Gonzalez To Sign With Yanks
787073445277505F310 wrote: One more thing I was thinking about today...sorry...my mind works this way I guess. MLB has publicly stated that they are trying to market to younger fans, e.g. millennials, Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers. I’m a millennial, just barely. But I qualify! My generation is rapidly cutting cords with cable and satellite and switching to streaming services. This is going to drastically change the TV landscape. For those who may not know, most regional sports networks are heavily subsidized. Here’s how it works:
Let’s say there are a million households (just to use a round number) that subscribe to some service (cable or satellite) that carries ATT Sports. Of those million, on a good day, let’s say that 100,000 are tuned into the Bucs game. That means the other 900,000 people are subsidizing those 100,000 to watch baseball because they are pay the same bill.
In previous generations, the RSNs could get away with their racket because things like Hulu, YouTube Tv, and Netflix didn’t exist. And so grandma may only care about her Lifetime Movie Network, but since it’s bundled in a package that also includes ATT Pittsburgh, she’s going to buy it and pay for it, even if she never watches.
Streaming eliminates that need. This also reduces the number of people subsidizing the relatively few who care about live sports. The RSNs are trying to hold on for dear life, but they have to see the writing on the wall. More and more people are cord cutting, which means less and less are paying for their channels.
This means they can offer less and less to teams to carry their games. Whinch means less revenue, which means smaller contracts.
I’m pretty busy in the evenings, so I don’t get to watch a ton of games. I think I only watched one game last year beginning to end. But, I subscribe to two things...Hulu with live TV, which includes RSNs for the Cards, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Twins, and MLB.tv. So, I can stream all of the Pirates out of market games. I’m still SOL when they play the Brewers, since they’re blacked out here and not on Hulu for some reason, but I digress. Here’s my point...I subscribe to these because I enjoy watching baseball. Most people my age can't stand watching baseball. In the past, this wasn’t a big deal for the RSNs. People were going to subscribe to them regardless in order to get Nickelodeon, or Discovery, or whatever. Now, with so many streaming services, that’s not the case. The millennial who doesn’t care about MLB can get by just fine with a Netflix subscription. No more subsidizing RSNs he never watches.
So, what’s MLB's solution? Try to market the game to millennials and our minuscule attention spans. Eliminate shifts! Make pitchers pitch to three batters! Get rid of the DH! Yeah! These will all make the game more exciting and get more millennials interested! That’s what we need!
Quite on the contrary, MLB. You know what you don’t need? A non-competitive league where half the teams have literally no shot as of Day 1 of Spring Training, either because of MLB's unbalanced economic system, or because they have chosen of their own volition to tank the season. You know what you also need? To get rid of your freaking blackouts! Make it so a Brewers fan in Iowa, can, I don’t know...watch Brewers games in Iowa!!!
I feel like these proposed rule changes and economic “solutions” are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And if anyone knows anything about that, it’s a Pirates fan. The solution isn’t gimmicks. It’s comepetiton. Competition in the TV market place (please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here...streaming services are GREAT for fans...not so much for cable companies). Competition among teams where each team has a chance to win with relative frequency (not every year, mind you, but every team should expect to be competitive with some frequency). Competition for the best players...in the draft, internationally, and for FAs. If MLB wants to fix this, then for Pete's sake, let’s really fix it...not these pointless measures that do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Off rant.
They blacked me out of the radio broadcast when I was trying to listen at work today (I'm in a metal building with no reception). I'll repeat--they blacked me out of an AM RADIO SPRING TRAINING GAME because they thought I might want to buy their package for 19.99 (where I would be blacked out anyhow).
Let’s say there are a million households (just to use a round number) that subscribe to some service (cable or satellite) that carries ATT Sports. Of those million, on a good day, let’s say that 100,000 are tuned into the Bucs game. That means the other 900,000 people are subsidizing those 100,000 to watch baseball because they are pay the same bill.
In previous generations, the RSNs could get away with their racket because things like Hulu, YouTube Tv, and Netflix didn’t exist. And so grandma may only care about her Lifetime Movie Network, but since it’s bundled in a package that also includes ATT Pittsburgh, she’s going to buy it and pay for it, even if she never watches.
Streaming eliminates that need. This also reduces the number of people subsidizing the relatively few who care about live sports. The RSNs are trying to hold on for dear life, but they have to see the writing on the wall. More and more people are cord cutting, which means less and less are paying for their channels.
This means they can offer less and less to teams to carry their games. Whinch means less revenue, which means smaller contracts.
I’m pretty busy in the evenings, so I don’t get to watch a ton of games. I think I only watched one game last year beginning to end. But, I subscribe to two things...Hulu with live TV, which includes RSNs for the Cards, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Twins, and MLB.tv. So, I can stream all of the Pirates out of market games. I’m still SOL when they play the Brewers, since they’re blacked out here and not on Hulu for some reason, but I digress. Here’s my point...I subscribe to these because I enjoy watching baseball. Most people my age can't stand watching baseball. In the past, this wasn’t a big deal for the RSNs. People were going to subscribe to them regardless in order to get Nickelodeon, or Discovery, or whatever. Now, with so many streaming services, that’s not the case. The millennial who doesn’t care about MLB can get by just fine with a Netflix subscription. No more subsidizing RSNs he never watches.
So, what’s MLB's solution? Try to market the game to millennials and our minuscule attention spans. Eliminate shifts! Make pitchers pitch to three batters! Get rid of the DH! Yeah! These will all make the game more exciting and get more millennials interested! That’s what we need!
Quite on the contrary, MLB. You know what you don’t need? A non-competitive league where half the teams have literally no shot as of Day 1 of Spring Training, either because of MLB's unbalanced economic system, or because they have chosen of their own volition to tank the season. You know what you also need? To get rid of your freaking blackouts! Make it so a Brewers fan in Iowa, can, I don’t know...watch Brewers games in Iowa!!!
I feel like these proposed rule changes and economic “solutions” are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And if anyone knows anything about that, it’s a Pirates fan. The solution isn’t gimmicks. It’s comepetiton. Competition in the TV market place (please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here...streaming services are GREAT for fans...not so much for cable companies). Competition among teams where each team has a chance to win with relative frequency (not every year, mind you, but every team should expect to be competitive with some frequency). Competition for the best players...in the draft, internationally, and for FAs. If MLB wants to fix this, then for Pete's sake, let’s really fix it...not these pointless measures that do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Off rant.
They blacked me out of the radio broadcast when I was trying to listen at work today (I'm in a metal building with no reception). I'll repeat--they blacked me out of an AM RADIO SPRING TRAINING GAME because they thought I might want to buy their package for 19.99 (where I would be blacked out anyhow).