I think the last move will be to trade for Soriano. If its something like Cloyd plus Nix and they pay $26m, I'm good with it. If its Brown or anyone better like that...

dajafi wrote:I think the last move will be to trade for Soriano. If its something like Cloyd plus Nix and they pay $26m, I'm good with it. If its Brown or anyone better like that...

I would agree with this. I hope Revere is in good shape.

ek wrote:it can't be brown. there won't be anyone to play RF

Pretty sure there's no one to play RF if Brown is here

the phillies have a bigger market size than the texas rangers. the rangers deal was $3B for 20 years, the Angels deal was 17 years and $2.5B. The rights fee for these deals is between 80-100M per year.

the phillies average over $200M in revenue per year now, it was close to $250m before the 2012 season according to forbes, with $132m coming from gate receipts.

even if that number drops by, say, 15% in 2013, that is only a drop of $20m. and while its no certainty, people who stop going to games aren't likely to stop watching all together. 5,000 fewer people going to games means at least a big chunk of those people will watch on tv, which increases the tv ratings. if a team like the astros can land a huge deal (20 years, $3.2B) then the phillies, a much more marketable brand in a huge market, will cash in on a deal of at least $3b, which will be a big upgrade on their current deal which was negotiated a long time ago before the huge baseball economics boom

i guess the Brown will be better in CF experiment is over

FTN wrote:the phillies have a bigger market size than the texas rangers. the rangers deal was $3B for 20 years, the Angels deal was 17 years and $2.5B. The rights fee for these deals is between 80-100M per year.

the phillies average over $200M in revenue per year now, it was close to $250m before the 2012 season according to forbes, with $132m coming from gate receipts.

even if that number drops by, say, 15% in 2013, that is only a drop of $20m. and while its no certainty, people who stop going to games aren't likely to stop watching all together. 5,000 fewer people going to games means at least a big chunk of those people will watch on tv, which increases the tv ratings. if a team like the astros can land a huge deal (20 years, $3.2B) then the phillies, a much more marketable brand in a huge market, will cash in on a deal of at least $3b, which will be a big upgrade on their current deal which was negotiated a long time ago before the huge baseball economics boom

Probably right, but I think the Phillies are going to be an interesting case-study. I fully expect the TV ratings to decrease before and more sharply than the attendance. CBP is such an event.

With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

JFLNYC wrote:With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

MLB is going to have no choice but to raise the luxury tax threshold higher. There's no justification for keeping it where it is at this point.

JFLNYC wrote:With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

the threshold will increase. and if the team is adding an extra $60m a year in revenue (the diff in the new deal to the old deal, just speculative) then some of that will still end up in the owners' pockets, but it will also offset a $20m luxury tax bill every year.

the yankees stake in YES generates about $225m per year in revenue. that alone covers their payroll and almost all of the luxury tax payments, and doesn't factor in any money from other advertising or their gate revenue.

dajafi wrote:I think the last move will be to trade for Soriano. If its something like Cloyd plus Nix and they pay $26m, I'm good with it. If its Brown or anyone better like that...

Could be a move at the end of ST. Its in the Phillies best interest to see if Ruf and Brown can play at the MLB level before doing a deal. They might be good enough to stand pat.
As far as Hamilton goes, he's a grease box looking for a match. His addiction problems are always out there and so is his personality. Incapacitated by too much caffeine last year; ok? There are reasons why the Rangers more or less didn't want him back and were willing to take a hit in their lineup for it. We'll just see have to see how this SoCal thing works for Hambone. Maybe someone will fix him up with Lindsay Lohan.

Trent Steele wrote:

FTN wrote:the phillies have a bigger market size than the texas rangers. the rangers deal was $3B for 20 years, the Angels deal was 17 years and $2.5B. The rights fee for these deals is between 80-100M per year.

the phillies average over $200M in revenue per year now, it was close to $250m before the 2012 season according to forbes, with $132m coming from gate receipts.

even if that number drops by, say, 15% in 2013, that is only a drop of $20m. and while its no certainty, people who stop going to games aren't likely to stop watching all together. 5,000 fewer people going to games means at least a big chunk of those people will watch on tv, which increases the tv ratings. if a team like the astros can land a huge deal (20 years, $3.2B) then the phillies, a much more marketable brand in a huge market, will cash in on a deal of at least $3b, which will be a big upgrade on their current deal which was negotiated a long time ago before the huge baseball economics boom

Probably right, but I think the Phillies are going to be an interesting case-study. I fully expect the TV ratings to decrease before and more sharply than the attendance. CBP is such an event.

they already dropped 39% last year. http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journa ... -RSNs.aspx?

I really believe this was a bigger deal than most people think.

I just want to say I so happy FTN is posting again.

Wheels Tupay wrote:I just want to say I so happy FTN is posting again.

its not going to last, sorry

FTN wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

the threshold will increase. and if the team is adding an extra $60m a year in revenue (the diff in the new deal to the old deal, just speculative) then some of that will still end up in the owners' pockets, but it will also offset a $20m luxury tax bill every year.

the yankees stake in YES generates about $225m per year in revenue. that alone covers their payroll and almost all of the luxury tax payments, and doesn't factor in any money from other advertising or their gate revenue.

The threshold is set in the CBA. And, FWIW, the Yanks are trying to get under the threshold:

The Yankees have no hope of getting below the current threshold ($178 million) this season or next. But by 2014, when the goal is to nudge below $189 million, they conveniently have more than $50 million in guaranteed money disappearing off their books -- more than $30 million of it just for the right to throw a goodbye party for A.J. Burnett and Rafael Soriano. So they're clearly shooting to get down to approximately $188.99999999 million by then.

Stark

Matt Gelb after Lannan and Adams signings...

If the Phillies do hold at $178 million, as Amaro said earlier this month, they could sign an outfielder with an average annual salary of approximately $7 million and be right up against the tax threshold.

And if the luxury tax was $220m, the Yankees would be trying to get to that number.

The CBA ends in 2016. The players union will strike till the end of time if the luxury tax isn't significantly increased/removed after 500% and higher revenue increases from local TV rights. And I would fully support them. Artificially depressing wages isn't the right way to deal with the revenue disparity; better revenue-sharing is. That's entirely within the owner's controls.

Trent Steele wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

MLB is going to have no choice but to raise the luxury tax threshold higher. There's no justification for keeping it where it is at this point.

the goal of the luxury tax is not to charge teams for overspending, but to try to pay players less. i dont think it will be increased anytime soon.

pacino wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:With the Phils bumping up against the tax threshold, all the new TV deal is going to mean is more money in the owners' pockets.

MLB is going to have no choice but to raise the luxury tax threshold higher. There's no justification for keeping it where it is at this point.

the goal of the luxury tax is not to charge teams for overspending, but to try to pay players less. i dont think it will be increased anytime soon.

That's exactly why it will change when the CBA expires. Players Association isn't stupid and there is no hiding these $$$.

that's a good point. it will be interesting to see how they will try to divide the owners on that. guys like loria love it. i doubt the angels/yankees/sox love it.

Never underestimate the greed of the owners. The whole reason the owners agreed to a luxury cap is to put more money in their pockets, increase the value of their franchises and because they can't and won't agree to meaningful revenue sharing. Any talk of competitive balance is just eyewash.

Of course better revenue sharing is the answer. So, why do we think MLB owners have never agreed to meaningful revenue sharing? Because the haves don't want to give to the have nots. Revenue sharing is easy in the NFL where the vast majority of broadcast revenue is national. In MLB it's hard because most broadcast revenue for each team is local and the Yanks, Red Sox, Phillies, etc., have not thus far and likely never will voluntarily agree to share significant amounts of their local TV revenue with teams like the Pirates, Royals and A's.

And now the haves are even losing their tolerance for paying the tax. The Red Sox are well under the threshold, the Yanks are striving to get there by 2014 and, much to our dismay, it seems like our hope that the Phils would be willing to pay the tax on a one-time basis in 2013 is not going to happen.