Mets Signing Frazier while Andropolus fiddles

Jaw said:
I think the continued success of The Battery will help revenue both by increasing attendance and generating revenue outside of attendance. Unfortunately, we still have a terrible TV contract that is really holding us back. I also think the current TV value boom will likely bust prior to us being able to capitalize on it, and that basically leads to a future that resembles Pittsburgh or Cincinnati. Payroll has fallen from top 3 to bottom third in 20 years. I miss Ted. And TBS.
Click to expand...

The Braves signed a 20 year deal in 2008 that was well below their market value in 2008.

They are getting a big revenue boost out of the new deal whether the television deals are still expanding or not.

There is no particular reason to believe that tv money will be going backward. I don't think we've seen examples of that. If anything, stable TV money would be a benefit to Atlanta as you are most vulnerable just after you've signed the deal. Ask the SEC, which ended up expanding to create new content due to a signing a long deal that turned out to not be market setting for very long.
 
Super said:
i mean, it's pretty clear Frazier took less money to stay in NY. How much less, and how it affected the Braves, we don't know.
Click to expand...

Is it? What other teams were bidding on Frazier?

Other than some very speculative talk about the Yanks, I hadn't seen a single rumor about interest in Frazier until he signed with the Mets.

Show me links to the reported interest from other teams. Thanks.
 
thethe said:
How much progress was made at the battery?
Click to expand...

I haven't been by there in a while. The Omni finally opened last month, and I think that was the last major space to be completed in the actual three building Battery development. I think the Braves also have ownership of some other large parcels around the stadium that will be used primarily for office space, but I can't find the article I'm looking for.
 
Southcack77 said:
Your reminder that Braves revenues were up 70% in 2017 through Q3.

http://www.myajc.com/sports/braves-break-down-sources-revenue-increase/sWFuLxMsmqyxfBEv7VvakI/

A little more scientific than looking at raw attendance and payrolls and trying to guess whether the Braves were more profitable or not.
Click to expand...

I look forward to your explanation as to why payroll went down this year then.

I also would like to see your payroll projections through the early 2020s. We will see who is right. Here's a potential spoiler: it's never been you.
 
Southcack77 said:
The Braves signed a 20 year deal in 2008 that was well below their market value in 2008.

They are getting a big revenue boost out of the new deal whether the television deals are still expanding or not.

There is no particular reason to believe that tv money will be going backward. I don't think we've seen examples of that. If anything, stable TV money would be a benefit to Atlanta as you are most vulnerable just after you've signed the deal. Ask the SEC, which ended up expanding to create new content due to a signing a long deal that turned out to not be market setting for very long.
Click to expand...

A big TV revenue boost doesn't help much if a majority of the other teams get a bigger revenue boost from TV money. The Braves TV deal is substandard when compared to the rest of MLB.

As for the idea that TV money isn't going to decrease, the trend of the past few years is pretty well established at this point- subscribers are fleeing:

http://www.businessinsider.com/decline-of-us-tv-subscribers-2015-4
According to a chart by BI Intelligence, based on data from The Convergence Consulting Group, the number of households paying for TV peaked in 2012. There were 97.6 million US households with TV subscriptions in 2012, but that number declined by about 150,000 in 2013, and another 260,000 in 2014.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/esp...le-sports-networks-keep-shedding-viewers.html
The numbers of subscribers for cable sports networks continue to plummet, and ESPN is once again one of the hardest-hit. ESPN had a peak of 99 million subscribers in 2013, but fell to 92 million by November 2015 and 90.8 million in February, and now they’re down even further. Sports TV Ratings recently posted the June 2016 cable coverage estimates from Nielsen, which show that ESPN has dropped by another 1.5 million subscribers, and other sports networks are falling as well.

https://arstechnica.com/information...ble-tv-company-lost-subscribers-last-quarter/
The 11 biggest pay-TV providers in the US, representing 95 percent of the market, lost 665,000 net video subscribers in Q2 2016, Leichtman Research Group reported today. This is more than double the losses of two years ago. Previously, the companies lost 545,000 subscribers in Q2 2015, 300,000 in Q2 2014, and 350,000 in Q2 2013.

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-subscribers-2017-3
In 2011, ESPN peaked when they topped 100 million subscribers. However, in the six years since then, their numbers have steadily fallen, down 12% to just under 88 million in the latest Nielsen estimates, according to Sports TV Ratings.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/04/w...ubscriptions-points-to-a-cord-cutting-future/
A report by MoffettNathanson found that the pay cable industry lost 762,000 subscribers in Q1 2017, the worst drop ever. To compare last year’s Q1 saw a mere 141,000 subscribers lost.
Analyst Craig Moffett said that the “Pay TV subscriber universe [shrank] at its worst ever annual rate of decline (-2.4%)” and there have been 6.5 million cord-cutter (and the new “cord-never” user who doesn’t install a Pay TV source at all) watchers since 2013.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...television-subscribers-accelerates/801959001/
Cable television subscribers are leaving Comcast at a faster pace, the company reported Thursday, reflecting the impact of a consumer shift from traditional TV services to online channels and streaming services.
Philadelphia-based Comcast (CMCSA) reported a loss of 125,000 total video customers during the third quarter, up from the 34,000 loss the company logged for the April-to-June period.

So far, sports contracts have been somewhat insulated from the loss of revenue thanks to increases in the rate per subscriber for sports channels. The problem is that jacking up that rate has accelerated the "cord cutting" pace (one of the articles linked points that out, but I forgot to copy that part and I'm too disinterested to go back and find it.) The outcome is pretty clear, and it isn't in the Braves' favor.
 
JohnAdcox said:
You had wondered when the Braves ever got a hometown discount, yes?
Click to expand...

I think it was pretty clear I was talking about newly signed FAs from outside the organization.

Teams routinely get discounts from players who have been with the organization their entire career.

My apologies for assuming this distinction was obvious. Clearly, it was more complicated than I initially thought. Thank you for bringing to light my error in judging the overall intelligence of posters like you.
 
Enscheff said:
Is it? What other teams were bidding on Frazier?

Other than some very speculative talk about the Yanks, I hadn't seen a single rumor about interest in Frazier until he signed with the Mets.

Show me links to the reported interest from other teams. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I didn't make a claim about other teams, so not sure why you're using that straw man. it's pretty well-known he had a strong preference for New York. Someone even reported the Mets were hesitant to engage with him in fear of being used to get a better deal from the Yankees.
 
Super said:
I didn't make a claim about other teams, so not sure why you're using that straw man. it's pretty well-known he had a strong preference for New York. Someone even reported the Mets were hesitant to engage with him in fear of being used to get a better deal from the Yankees.
Click to expand...

Logic:

Frazier only "took a discount to play in NY" if a team outside of NY was offering him more than the teams in NY.

Without evidence that other teams outside of NY were offering him more, it is silly to say he "took a discount to play in NY".
 
Enscheff said:
You have once again proven your player valuation skill.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You must have been real excited about the Melvin Upton Jr signing from a few years ago.

In a year that we aren't expected to be competitive, there was no need to go out and sign Frazier. Even if you think he will magically hit above .273 for the first time in his career at his age. He isn't as good as you think he is.
 
I'll just leave this here. It is Runs plotted vs several stats for all MLB teams in 2017.

Learn from it, or remain ignorant. Choice is yours.

szZHA8U.jpg
 
Evad said:
Thanks. You must have been real excited about the Melvin Upton Jr signing from a few years ago.

In a year that we aren't expected to be competitive, there was no need to go out and sign Frazier. Even if you think he will magically hit above .273 for the first time in his career at his age. He isn't as good as you think he is.
Click to expand...

He's 3.0 in *some* version of WAR.
 
Enscheff said:
ms outside of NY were offering him more, it is silly to say he "took a discount to play in NY".
Click to expand...

yes, the widely-reported idea that he wanted to play in new york is silly. we have no idea what offers he received, but he made it clear he wanted to remain in new york. you don't think new york teams knowing that gave them some leverage. ok, then.
 
Super said:
yes, the widely-reported idea that he wanted to play in new york is silly. we have no idea what offers he received, but he made it clear he wanted to remain in new york. you don't think new york teams knowing that gave them some leverage. ok, then.
Click to expand...

It's obvious Frazier preferred playing closer to home. I'd also bet anything that if he received a market value offer for his production value at the beginning of the offseason that he would have taken that regardless of where it was from.

His market, like many others this year, have slowly developed if at all. The Mets/Yankees were in a position to offer him very little at this point and still sign him. He wouldn't have signed with Atlanta for that amount However if the Braves offered him 2/30 or 3/45 he would be here too. I don't think any of those offers were out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top