SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2019-2020 Red Sox Offseason
|
Post by huskies15 on Dec 18, 2018 16:59:00 GMT -5
Pay 'em all, kick some ass, hang some more banners, sell some more swag, and party when the world ends before these contracts do
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2018 17:02:04 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that the cable money is a complete bubble that is going to pop at some point. There is no way that it can't and the owners know that too.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 18, 2018 17:19:17 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that the cable money is a complete bubble that is going to pop at some point. There is no way that it can't and the owners know that too. How? I might buy that line in other sports because of declining cable customers. Yet not NESN. It's a stand alone company and Red Sox nation will always have to watch their team. They have already partnered with three internet TV providers like Youtube TV and playstation vue and have links to preasure companies like Hulu, Sling, and direct TV now to add them. Shows they are being smart. My dad picked Youtube TV over Sling when he switch because of NESN. Heck worst case the whole market crashes and they just sell a monthly membership directly to fans. I just don't see how a bubble happens and kills NESNs profits like you could see in the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. Unless you think Red Sox fans will just stop watching the Red Sox and that is crazy!
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 18, 2018 17:49:51 GMT -5
Some good posting. I would add that everyone knows the industry is flush with cash. Broadly speaking, the Sox (and other large market teams) have a fiduciary responsibility to keep spending near the luxury limits to keep the game healthy and the players well fed (so to speak).
If a team wants to reset, that is totally understandable. As rip mentioned, they got their hands in your pockets, even when you aren't in the stadium. They best put up some large to show the folks they aren't just in it for the money (and I give credit to Henry who has done that since he bought the team)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2018 18:08:46 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that the cable money is a complete bubble that is going to pop at some point. There is no way that it can't and the owners know that too. How? I might buy that line in other sports because of declining cable customers. Yet not NESN. It's a stand alone company and Red Sox nation will always have to watch their team. They have already partnered with three internet TV providers like Youtube TV and playstation vue and have links to preasure companies like Hulu, Sling, and direct TV now to add them. Shows they are being smart. My dad picked Youtube TV over Sling when he switch because of NESN. Heck worst case the whole market crashes and they just sell a monthly membership directly to fans. I just don't see how a bubble happens and kills NESNs profits like you could see in the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. Unless you think Red Sox fans will just stop watching the Red Sox and that is crazy! Eventually, cable companies will no longer be able to gouge local customers. There will come a day. At that point, broadcast rights for the cable companies will no longer be worth tens of billions of dollars just to keep people paying for 200 channels just so they can watch one of them. Cord cutters are more and more common all the time. These cable deals are not going to keep increasing exponentially. Hell, young people barely watch baseball now. My girlfriend works in retail and doesn't have a single person at work to talk baseball to and there are about 300 in her store. These people aren't going to subscribe to cable just to watch a single team. The cable industry will die just like long distance telephone companies. Kids watch streams, they don't watch tv. If the market crashes, they won't be collecting nearly as much money as they're getting now from the people who are forced to pay a ridiculous amount of money for cable subscriptions if they want to watch local sports.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 18, 2018 19:51:00 GMT -5
How? I might buy that line in other sports because of declining cable customers. Yet not NESN. It's a stand alone company and Red Sox nation will always have to watch their team. They have already partnered with three internet TV providers like Youtube TV and playstation vue and have links to preasure companies like Hulu, Sling, and direct TV now to add them. Shows they are being smart. My dad picked Youtube TV over Sling when he switch because of NESN. Heck worst case the whole market crashes and they just sell a monthly membership directly to fans. I just don't see how a bubble happens and kills NESNs profits like you could see in the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. Unless you think Red Sox fans will just stop watching the Red Sox and that is crazy! Eventually, cable companies will no longer be able to gouge local customers. There will come a day. At that point, broadcast rights for the cable companies will no longer be worth tens of billions of dollars just to keep people paying for 200 channels just so they can watch one of them. Cord cutters are more and more common all the time. These cable deals are not going to keep increasing exponentially. Hell, young people barely watch baseball now. My girlfriend works in retail and doesn't have a single person at work to talk baseball to and there are about 300 in her store. These people aren't going to subscribe to cable just to watch a single team. The cable industry will die just like long distance telephone companies. Kids watch streams, they don't watch tv. If the market crashes, they won't be collecting nearly as much money as they're getting now from the people who are forced to pay a ridiculous amount of money for cable subscriptions if they want to watch local sports. Did you even read my comment? Edit: My wife works at hair salon and while most don't talk about it, it gets discussed even in a place that is almost all women. Aren't you down south? Can't compare that to Red Sox Nation in Massachusetts. It's part of our culture here and is a huge talking point for millions of people all summer long. There isn't huge price gouging in Baseball. There isn't lump all teams together for this huge price or you get none of them. The fact NESN is nation wide shows how many people want to watch the Red Sox. Nevermind cable cutters don't just stop getting TV. Like my dad they just switch to something else and NESN is already in those markets and growing into the others.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 18, 2018 21:44:45 GMT -5
Interesting piece in the Athletic comparing Harper to Machado as long term player investments - which has implications for those thinking about position player extensions for the Sox (specifically: Mookie, Xander and JBJ). theathletic.com/719317/2018/12/18/who-will-age-better-bryce-harper-or-manny-machado/Subscription only but an excerpt: Take a further look at the existing research on aging curves, though, and a few actionable findings rise to the top that can help us differentiate between the two. Contact outside the zone ages terribly from the get-go Strikeout rate in the modern era drops off much worse than it used to Athletic tools — like exit velocity and sprint speed — age fine, but they only get worse as time goes on Fast players age better than players with “young old” skills like plate discipline As players age, they retain defensive value by moving to easier positionsThe conclusion is that Harper, because of his speed, strike zone contact rate percentage, and power is a better long term investment, though Machado gets the edge in defensive value. Basically, as he regresses Machado can play 3rd then 2nd if he goes to an AL club. Harper would go from RF to shorter OF (Left in Fenway, RF in Yankee Stadium etc), to first to DH - his power and K-zone contact rate likely taking him into a DH role if he signs with an AL team. A ton of interesting info in that piece over all with a lot of granular insights into non-pitcher player aging data, which appears to be extensive.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 19, 2018 9:18:29 GMT -5
How? I might buy that line in other sports because of declining cable customers. Yet not NESN. It's a stand alone company and Red Sox nation will always have to watch their team. They have already partnered with three internet TV providers like Youtube TV and playstation vue and have links to preasure companies like Hulu, Sling, and direct TV now to add them. Shows they are being smart. My dad picked Youtube TV over Sling when he switch because of NESN. Heck worst case the whole market crashes and they just sell a monthly membership directly to fans. I just don't see how a bubble happens and kills NESNs profits like you could see in the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. Unless you think Red Sox fans will just stop watching the Red Sox and that is crazy! Eventually, cable companies will no longer be able to gouge local customers. There will come a day. At that point, broadcast rights for the cable companies will no longer be worth tens of billions of dollars just to keep people paying for 200 channels just so they can watch one of them. Cord cutters are more and more common all the time. These cable deals are not going to keep increasing exponentially. Hell, young people barely watch baseball now. My girlfriend works in retail and doesn't have a single person at work to talk baseball to and there are about 300 in her store. These people aren't going to subscribe to cable just to watch a single team. The cable industry will die just like long distance telephone companies. Kids watch streams, they don't watch tv. If the market crashes, they won't be collecting nearly as much money as they're getting now from the people who are forced to pay a ridiculous amount of money for cable subscriptions if they want to watch local sports. I don't know anyone who subscribes to anything more than the most basic cable for any reason other than sports. Sports fanatics have the toughest time cutting the cord, because buying all those packages individually adds up fast. The "young people don't even watch baseball" canard has been going on since people said Babe Ruth was ruining the game with home runs. If baseball was dying and going to dry up, this wouldn't have happened: www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/sports/mlb-fox-tv-deal.htmlIt's not cable that's keeping baseball above water - it's baseball (and sports in general) that keeps cable in business. You've been kinda working this talking point for all the years I've posted here and in that time, the opposite has happened - the cable contracts keep getting more, rather than less, lucrative. Why? Because television needs baseball more than baseball needs television. I really don't think there's anything that can convince you that you're wrong on this - and, I mean, someday the sun will swallow the earth which will be awful for the CBA - but this doesn't appear to be happening like you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2018 10:31:22 GMT -5
Eventually, cable companies will no longer be able to gouge local customers. There will come a day. At that point, broadcast rights for the cable companies will no longer be worth tens of billions of dollars just to keep people paying for 200 channels just so they can watch one of them. Cord cutters are more and more common all the time. These cable deals are not going to keep increasing exponentially. Hell, young people barely watch baseball now. My girlfriend works in retail and doesn't have a single person at work to talk baseball to and there are about 300 in her store. These people aren't going to subscribe to cable just to watch a single team. The cable industry will die just like long distance telephone companies. Kids watch streams, they don't watch tv. If the market crashes, they won't be collecting nearly as much money as they're getting now from the people who are forced to pay a ridiculous amount of money for cable subscriptions if they want to watch local sports. I don't know anyone who subscribes to anything more than the most basic cable for any reason other than sports. Sports fanatics have the toughest time cutting the cord, because buying all those packages individually adds up fast. The "young people don't even watch baseball" canard has been going on since people said Babe Ruth was ruining the game with home runs. If baseball was dying and going to dry up, this wouldn't have happened: www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/sports/mlb-fox-tv-deal.htmlIt's not cable that's keeping baseball above water - it's baseball (and sports in general) that keeps cable in business. You've been kinda working this talking point for all the years I've posted here and in that time, the opposite has happened - the cable contracts keep getting more, rather than less, lucrative. Why? Because television needs baseball more than baseball needs television. I really don't think there's anything that can convince you that you're wrong on this - and, I mean, someday the sun will swallow the earth which will be awful for the CBA - but this doesn't appear to be happening like you think it is. Just keep this in mind. The vast majority of money being paid to professional sports through cable is paid for by people who don't watch any of it. If that's a long-term business model that will never fail, then I've got some condos on Jupiter to sell you. As more and more people who don't watch sports cut the cord, the less money sports will get from cable regardless of the popularity of the sport. They get almost all of their money through cable fees. Even if you never watch ESPN, they are collecting $5 a month from you. Every sports channel that you never watch is collecting money from you to give to the sport they cover and you have no choice unless you cancel your cable subscription. Well people are now seeing their choices. The number of cable subscriptions declined 3.8% last year. I'm going to guess this number doesn't just stop after one year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 19, 2018 10:50:52 GMT -5
The reason the money goes up even when subscriptions drop is because advertising spots on sports is gaining value. Sports are the one thing people insist on watching live so while you DVR your hour show and start it 20 minutes late and fast forward thru the commercials. That means those commercial spots get cheaper. Advertisers realize that the only way to ensure your message gets out is to broadcast on live sporting events. More people fight for those spots and they increase in value.
Remember Fox and ESPN aren’t cable companies. They are broadcast companies that are on cable and now other distribution channels. Comcast needs to worry not baseball and Fox.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 19, 2018 11:03:28 GMT -5
The reason the money goes up even when subscriptions drop is because advertising spots on sports is gaining value. Sports are the one thing people insist on watching live so while you DVR your hour show and start it 20 minutes late and fast forward thru the commercials. That means those commercial spots get cheaper. Advertisers realize that the only way to ensure your message gets out is to broadcast on live sporting events. More people fight for those spots and they increase in value. Remember Fox and ESPN aren’t cable companies. They are broadcast companies that are on cable and now other distribution channels. Comcast needs to worry not baseball and Fox. And waiting for the newest season to end up on Netflix doesn't quite work the same for baseball, either. (Though the most recent season DID have a high rewatchability factor. Would binge watch daily.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2018 11:15:35 GMT -5
The reason the money goes up even when subscriptions drop is because advertising spots on sports is gaining value. Sports are the one thing people insist on watching live so while you DVR your hour show and start it 20 minutes late and fast forward thru the commercials. That means those commercial spots get cheaper. Advertisers realize that the only way to ensure your message gets out is to broadcast on live sporting events. More people fight for those spots and they increase in value. Remember Fox and ESPN aren’t cable companies. They are broadcast companies that are on cable and now other distribution channels. Comcast needs to worry not baseball and Fox. Baseball needs to worry if the cable contracts dry up. That's why this tangent started. Also, advertising is dwarfed by cable fees. Cable fees make up 60-70% of cable companies' revenues and subscriptions are falling. "ESPN's business model is getting 60 percent of the country that doesn't watch ESPN to pay 60 bucks a year to pay for ESPN." (actually way more than that) Cable TV customers pay more than $9 per month for ESPN networks whether they watch or not
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 19, 2018 11:32:28 GMT -5
Cable fees make up 60-70% of cable companies' revenues and subscriptions are falling. MLB doesn't have contracts with cable companies. Baseball (and live sports in general) is a huge moneymaker for networks, across platforms. That's why Fox just signed a new 10-year deal for incredible money.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 19, 2018 11:54:41 GMT -5
The NFL may be king but honestly I think their issues are way more serious than the MLB's. I absolutely love sports as do most people here, but between all the commercials and the fact its slowly turning into flag football, its becoming more and more unwatchable for me. I used to tune in all the time to SNF and MNF but I hardly ever do anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 19, 2018 12:03:03 GMT -5
Shouldn't all this cable talk be moved into its own thread?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2018 12:14:59 GMT -5
Cable fees make up 60-70% of cable companies' revenues and subscriptions are falling. MLB doesn't have contracts with cable companies. Baseball (and live sports in general) is a huge moneymaker for networks, across platforms. That's why Fox just signed a new 10-year deal for incredible money. Teams have huge deals with cable companies. Cable tv is a huge moneymaker for baseball. I really need to say that? If the current model goes away (it is indisputable that it's in trouble), there is no way in hell that they will get anywhere close to the same amount from streaming because only people who want to pay for streaming will pay for it. The current model of levying a sports tax on everyone who watches any tv at all is not sustainable. ESPN cannot just keep doubling their broadcast fees every 5 years forever. They need subscriptions.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 19, 2018 14:26:09 GMT -5
MLB doesn't have contracts with cable companies. Baseball (and live sports in general) is a huge moneymaker for networks, across platforms. That's why Fox just signed a new 10-year deal for incredible money. Teams have huge deals with cable companies. Cable tv is a huge moneymaker for baseball. I really need to say that? If the current model goes away (it is indisputable that it's in trouble), there is no way in hell that they will get anywhere close to the same amount from streaming because only people who want to pay for streaming will pay for it. The current model of levying a sports tax on everyone who watches any tv at all is not sustainable. ESPN cannot just keep doubling their broadcast fees every 5 years forever. They need subscriptions. I feel like you’re conflating networks/broadcasting companies and cable companies.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2018 15:59:08 GMT -5
The whole fallacy of this debate is that cord cutting means no longer paying for TV. I know tons of people that cut the cord, yet none of them gave up TV. Almost all of the internet TV providers give you locals that have football and most now give you most local sports. They realized the only way to get people to dump regular cable is if you offer sports.
RJP point is 100% correct, the sports money is from networks not cable companies. There income doesn't change unless you don't pay for anything.
Cable providers and ESPN are in trouble. People want choices not just large bundles. The fact ESPN cost more than any other channel is kinda crazy. They don't even have that much sports on the channels. If the Red Sox are on you can't watch it in our market because of NESN, only out of market people can watch it. I love sports but don't watch ESPN anymore. Solution companies like Sling TV now offer packages without ESPN, yet they include everything else. The only sport ESPN seems to show a lot of games is College football. That is ESPN problem, its more shows talking about sports than actual sports. Given the internet you can get all the information you want about sports. No longer having to watch an hour long sports center waiting for information on trades, free agent signings or how your team did. If ESPN crashes it does nothing to the Red Sox, heck it does nothing for most sports.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 19, 2018 17:44:57 GMT -5
Off topic to which I greatly apologize.
My grandson is an unbelievable Sox fan. I would like to get him a DVD covering the Sox season, playoffs and World Series. Does anyone know whether such exists? Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2018 17:48:03 GMT -5
I'm kind of tired of talking about this, but people are not acknowledging that networks get a ton of money from people who don't watch their networks and that's what will be corrected in time. It doesn't matter if it's ESPN or some tennis channel or NESN. It's an amazing business model which only works with collusion and draconian laws and complete ignorance of antitrust violations in sports that don't have an exemption. But it will not last forever. Eventually, people will figure out how to not pay $10 a month for ESPN when they don't even know what the channel # is. That's when the money disappears, because the people who DO want to watch those channels aren't going to pay $50 a month for it. And they are not going to be able to forever exponentially raise their broadcast rates either. ESPN has doubled in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 19, 2018 18:35:21 GMT -5
Jimed why in the world do you keep talking about ESPN? That isn't where all the money is coming from. Football is on CBS and Fox. My team Notre Dame is on NBC. The MLB playoffs are on Fox. College football is on all of those networks. NBC regional sports has our basketball games. If ESPN collapses others will pick up the slack. We've seen football contracts change over the years. Everyone knows what chanel NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox are. The funny thing is that NESN has zero to do with ESPN. Baseball doesn't have just one large TV deal like Basketball and Football. www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/05/22/years-nesn-has-gone-from-nowhere-everywhere/ijxQgsdHlc3xKLZQaQdD8L/story.htmlOld article but it shows the growth of NESN. It's not ESPN that needs 100 million subscribers. Red Sox and Bruin Nation support it and that won't change. It has very good ratings that just keep increasing and a fan base that is nation wide. NESN isn't ESPN, not even close. It doesn't need the whole Country supporting it, only Red Sox and Bruins fans. Given how crazy passionate we in Massachusetts are about our sports teams that will never change.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 19, 2018 18:38:45 GMT -5
I used ESPN because they'll be the first to fall. But every other sports network faces the same exact issues. The people in Boston who don't watch NESN when they get the channel are subsidizing you a lot.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2018 18:57:18 GMT -5
Off topic to which I greatly apologize. My grandson is an unbelievable Sox fan. I would like to get him a DVD covering the Sox season, playoffs and World Series. Does anyone know whether such exists? Thank you! I was thinking the same exact thing! I actually e-mailed NESN to ask them if they plan on putting out a DVD that commemorates the greatest Red Sox team in history. It's been 2 days and I've not received a reply and I don't expect to. The World Series DVD didn't cover the regular season or the post-season prior to the World Series. I was hoping NESN would put out a DVD just like they did in 2004 (Faith Rewarded), just like they did in 2007 (Champions Again), just like they did in 2013 (Band of Bearded Brothers). Nothing. In 2013 the announcement for Band of Bearded Brothers came out around Thanksgiving. There's been nothing so far so I'm assuming they're not putting anything out which to me is utterly ridiculous. NESN covers the Red Sox for the most part and this 2018 team that came along is a once in a lifetime team and will most likely go down as the greatest Red Sox team in our lifetime and they are among the all-time great teams in the sport. How they don't commemorate that is beyond me! So yeah, I'm kind of livid about that!
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 19, 2018 21:22:01 GMT -5
Nothing new, summary of the minors additions:
Chris CotilloVerified account @chriscotillo 4h4 hours ago
Red Sox minor-league signings so far:
C Juan Centeno
RHP Domingo Tapia
2B Tony Renda
OF Gorkys Hernandez
RHP Erasmo Ramirez
RHP Zach Putnam
.
.
.
Plus Rule 5 draft picks:
RHR Anyelo Gomez
RHR Andrew Schwaab
and via trade:
RHR Colten Brewer
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 20, 2018 8:07:12 GMT -5
I'm kind of tired of talking about this, but people are not acknowledging that networks get a ton of money from people who don't watch their networks and that's what will be corrected in time. It doesn't matter if it's ESPN or some tennis channel or NESN. It's an amazing business model which only works with collusion and draconian laws and complete ignorance of antitrust violations in sports that don't have an exemption. But it will not last forever. Eventually, people will figure out how to not pay $10 a month for ESPN when they don't even know what the channel # is. That's when the money disappears, because the people who DO want to watch those channels aren't going to pay $50 a month for it. And they are not going to be able to forever exponentially raise their broadcast rates either. ESPN has doubled in 5 years. Because there’s always going to be bundles. We, the people, are going to demand it thru our purchases. Netflix works the same way. They buy rights (cable companies buy rights) then they package a product to us. I don’t watch everything on Netflix but they have those other things to attract other people which ups subscriptions and brings the price down. FuboTV has a bunch of different sports and events for same reasons. Sure you can purchase a single channel if you want but that’s not taking off as much because the value is better for us as consumers the other way so we aren’t buying the single channel packages as much. Also, don’t act like cable and sports is the only place this happens. The higher education system is worse.
|
|
|