Indirectly... there are tons of Yankees fans in Tampa that flood the Trop whenever they are in town, but that is literally the extent of directly contributing to the Yankees pockets (and even then most of that goes to the Rays).
I don't think the Astros would hesitate to move him if they could upgrade at a prospect cost they are comfortable with. I would be very surprised if the Astros make any real effort to resign him. The Astros tried to ink him to a long term deal 2-3 years ago and he and his representatives demanded $100,000,000 contract... Which the Astros front office found absurd. Other efforts have been made with little progress. There is a reason the two sides didn't compromise over such a small amount.
I don't think we should give up on him yet. I don't think he's the future 1b but I do think he will be serviceable. I wouldn't mind if he could take over that dh spot in a year or two. I know he has played 110+ games but he also only played 19 last year so he never got a chance to find his groove. I will NOT be surprised when he breaks camp, mostly for the fact about Reed's service time and for the fact that he should have a good spring.
Their market has fewer overall viewers available, but very high viewership. The Rangers deal actually pays them about the same in Rights fees on average as the Cardinals, just across 20 instead of 15 years. The value of the Rangers deal has been disputed.
I'm vaguely remembering something about this. Seems like the Cards historically had a huge fan base throughout the center of the country because they are centrally located and back in the day used to be on a radio station that had ridiculous reach back before tvs were more common. I didn't really think that was as true though now with tv/internet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Confirmed: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Astros?src=hash">#Astros</a> outfielder/DH Evan Gattis recently underwent hernia surgery.</p>— Mark Berman (@MarkBermanFox26) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/status/697258141503782913">February 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Rangers are getting around 80+ million dollar/year with equity stake. The Cardinals around $50. It is not about the same... The Rangers have a bigger deal. The Cardinals deal is not one of the top 10 in baseball. High viewership is great... But still not as valuable as having a large number of viewers.
It's still indirect... And a small percentage of the bigger pie. Cardinals fans in North Dakota do not make them a big market. They do have a large following.
Yes, KMOX. Hell, on really clear days, you used to be able to get their signal in Austin/hill country. It's that strong.
and no ST for a guy that started slow last year. He'll need a rehab assignment if ST is already over when he's ready
This is a huge opportunity for Tyler White. I expect we'll hold Reed in the minors (briefly, a la Bryant), regardless how he performs in ST. It will be exciting to see Tucker/White/Singleton/Reed swing it out for ABs between 1B/DH. Two huge slots that are completely up for grabs.
I bet he's kicking himself over not taking whatever it was the Astros were offering at the time. I'm assuming this was after the 2013 season when he was an Allstar? He certainly didn't get $100 mil but I bet the Astros offered him a hell of a lot more than he's likely to get now that everyone sees that season was fool's gold.
The average for the Rangers is about $80M/year, The Cardinals deal is close to $70/M on average, but for 5 fewer years (making them very close in actual annual payments over the first 15 years). The Cardinals deal also includes an equity stake. Do you enjoy trying to be misleading? High viewership is incredibly valuable. Just ask the Astros.
But this makes zero sense as to the point of the total value of the deals being equal... the Rangers are getting ~$30 million more/year right now... for 5 more total years. The total worth of the deal is around $3 billion, whereas the Cardinals is $1 billion. The Cardinals deal is huge considering its the 8th smallest market in baseball... and that's attributable to its dedicated fans that tune-in constantly. The point was, even with a more dedicated fan-base and a more wide-spread fan-base, the more populated area (DFW) is still able to generate a larger TV deal. Also, not sure where you're getting your numbers from... The Cardinals haven't even started the "new" payout of their TV deal, which kicks in 2018... with the first year payment to be $50 million, with a single -digit escalator. The amount they get paid in the last year is close to what the Rangers are getting now, and as you said they have less overall years.(Link). High ratings is important... but its more important in a region with a large population. The Dodgers still have a dilemma where a large majority of the region don't get their channel... but since the area is so heavily populated, the amount that do get the channel is still a sizable chunk of TV viewers, enough to where the channel won't be needing to pull a CSN.
Quit saying $3M for the Rangers deal. [rquoter]Fox Sports headquarters in New York, while admitting an agreement had been reached, called the $3 billion figure "wildly inflated" before reporting that was all it would have to say on the matter. But don't be feeling too poorly for Chuck Greenberg-Nolan Ryan Rangers. There is in fact a 20-year deal in place. A more accurate figure for the Fox Sports Southwest-Rangers deal, reports a TV executive in the know, "is somewhere between $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion." That translates into the neighborhood of $75 million to $80 million a year.[/rquoter] http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/texas-rangers/rangersheadlines/2010/09/27/Rangers-new-20-year-2344 These aren't athletes, their bodies don't break down. Shorter deals are seen as more valuable to teams because it is the sooner they can sign the next extension. The Rangers aren't getting $80M right now, that is the average. Not starting amount (which figures to be in the $50s, similar to the Astros deal with CSN before that went under, and similar to the Cardinals deal). You are using the same awful math Forbes used when showing how much money the Astros were raking in a couple of years ago. Ignoring reality.
The Rangers got $85 million in their first year of the deal (a signing bonus, of sorts). Similar inflations have been made in the overall Cardinals deal as well (which is why its sort of moot in discounting just one of the deals). But thanks for pointing out discrepancies... in the end, we can still conclude that despite the Cardinals nation being more widespread than the Rangers nation... the Rangers are able to score a larger TV deal based solely on the number of viewers and the market size. That was the original point. The Cardinals TV deal remains below the upper echelon deals. They spend appropriately as a result. Perhaps the Astros can emulate that pattern, and eventually score a market-specific TV deal of their own (which was on the table, before the CSN deal was negotiated).
