Papelbon to the Phillies

[TopChuckie]

Considering you've yet to make a cogent point, no. What does this post prove, other than the Phillies are willing to spend a ton to stay at the top of the heap? Does that change the fact that the Yanks have more, and spend more, than any other team in baseball by a large margin? And STILL make a huge profit, because of the TV contract, not the national fan base, or the merchandising. And that the Phillies are counting on THEIR upcoming TV contract to keep them where they are?

In 2009, the Yankees had revenues more than 200 million greater than the Phillies, and that's due to the TV income. Are you still trying to maintain that the fan base make up the bulk of the value of a franchise? Because frankly, I've lost track of what your original premise actually was. Oh yeah, that success means more than market size...how do you explain the Mets making millions more than the Phillies then? Wouldn't be anything to do with being in NYC and having their own network, would it?

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?o...ials&Itemid=39

Come on. What makes a network viable? Ratings. What are ratings? Viewers. What are viewers? Fans. What are fans? THE FAN BASE.

You act like the Yankees TV network is some sort of divine gift that was handed to them, and only them, on some random basis and they are reaping the benefits.

The Phillies are winning, their fan base is growing, the TV ratings are growing, they will have leverage in their next broadcast deal because they have boosted ratings, they will either get a lot of money from someone else doing all the work to air their broadcast or they will make a lot of money from doing it on their own, they will put that money back into their team, the team will continue to win, the fan base will continue to grow, wash, rinse, repeat.

[revo]

Come on. What makes a network viable? Ratings. What are ratings? Viewers. What are viewers? Fans. What are fans? THE FAN BASE.

You act like the Yankees TV network is some sort of divine gift that was handed to them, and only them, on some random basis and they are reaping the benefits.

The Phillies are winning, their fan base is growing, the TV ratings are growing, they will have leverage in their next broadcast deal because they have boosted ratings, they will either get a lot of money from someone else doing all the work to air their broadcast or they will make a lot of money from doing it on their own, they will put that money back into their team, the team will continue to win, the fan base will continue to grow, wash, rinse, repeat.

While I do agree with you somewhat, you have to understand that some teams have the ability to collect tremendous revenues they can put back into their club even if their team doesn't win --the Yankees; the Red Sox; the Lakers; the NY Rangers; the Cowboys. Those types are very few.

And of those teams listed above, I don't think anyone will argue that the Yankees are at the very top of the revenue chain, even dwarfing the Red Sox.

So while yes, I agree with you that winning + other factors (such as facilities, networks, etc.) could lead to the extended success that the Texas Rangers, SF Giants and Philadelphia Phillies are now enjoying, don't forget that it could be fleeting. Just look at the Blue Jays, Rockies, Indians & Orioles as examples that used a new stadium and the revenues that came with it to put back into their clubs, but once times got tough, the fans -- and revenue -- left.

That's almost inconceivable for today's NY Yankees.

[TopChuckie]

While I do agree with you somewhat, you have to understand that some teams have the ability to collect tremendous revenues they can put back into their club even if their team doesn't win --the Yankees; the Red Sox; the Lakers; the NY Rangers; the Cowboys. Those types are very few.

And of those teams listed above, I don't think anyone will argue that the Yankees are at the very top of the revenue chain, even dwarfing the Red Sox.

So while yes, I agree with you that winning + other factors (such as facilities, networks, etc.) could lead to the extended success that the Texas Rangers, SF Giants and Philadelphia Phillies are now enjoying, don't forget that it could be fleeting. Just look at the Blue Jays, Rockies, Indians & Orioles as examples that used a new stadium and the revenues that came with it to put back into their clubs, but once times got tough, the fans -- and revenue -- left.

That's almost inconceivable for today's NY Yankees.

So you are saying Yankee fans are more loyal than all other baseball fans?

The Yankees, and those other teams, are more established so yeah, it will take more down time to undo that. Those teams have pretty much always been winners, or lovable losers, and we can count on our teams to always do what it takes, to the best of their ability, to put a winner on the field. I think that's what keeps those fans around. I was nervous that would change when George died, but fortunately everyone there realized that's why they are what they are.

I don't think Yankee fans are any more or less fickle or loyal than Cardinals fans, Indians fans, Tigers fans, Phillies fans (They will turn on them when the chips are down, but that is part of being a Philadelphia fan. The Phillies were losers for years, but they were still popular in Philly.), Cubs fans obviously, etc. Attendance and popularity took a hit and were down for the Yankees in the '80's, particularly '86 when the Mets were up, but even then George at least had stars that kept hope alive and some people in the seats. He just didn't realize then he also needed better pieces, and pitching, around the stars. He also resorted to stunts to keep the Yankees in the news and on people's minds. Had they remained losers until today, how would things be different for the New York Yankees? I'll let you all enjoy the thought of that for a moment. Twenty years of Dale Berra's, Andy Hawkins's, Steve Trout's, Ken Phelps's, and Alvaro Espinosa's...

I don't think the Red Sox were much different than any of those baseball teams I mentioned above 15-20 years ago, but apparently they've now moved into the pantheon. Why can't the Phillies be next? Why can't the Giants? Why can't the Dodgers be the Lakers of baseball? It will take a very long time to eclipse what the Yankees have built, but why can't MOST other teams be the next Red Sox?

I contend most can, it just requires commitment to putting that money into the team and competent management of that money. The Orioles, Angels, Mets, & Dodgers have all tried it, they were just missing that second component. The Red Sox and Phillies weren't. Do the Nationals have it? The Marlins appear willing, but they are doomed regardless, some towns just aren't baseball towns, unfortunately.

[revo]

So you are saying Yankee fans are more loyal than all other baseball fans?

That's where the big market of NYC comes into play -- through corporations that buy expensive suites and season tickets. Other cities of course have their own local companies, but none can compete with the big boys of NY & LA.

[Erik]

(They will turn on them when the chips are down, but that is part of being a Philadelphia fan. The Phillies were losers for years, but they were still popular in Philly.)

The Phils were the #1 team in town, win or lose, from the time the A's moved to Kansas City until the strike in 1994. Philly folks were particularly disillusioned by it, and years of incompetent management (1993 being a glorious aberration) didn't help, nor did Bill Giles calling the city a small market. (He was trying to say that the team could not support a big-market payroll until it got a new stadium, but it came out wrong.) So then the Eagles became #1 in town and stayed there until the Phils won it all in 2008. The Phils could not translate their success from 1976-83 into high-payroll elite status, but that was a very different era with very unfavorable stadium and TV situations as compared to today. So we'll see how it plays out, but I am optimistic.

[heyelander]

lovely. Gotta get things done ASAP right Rube?

Under the new CBA, teams that sign the remaining Type A relievers will not be forced to surrender draft picks, a source tells Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports
The measure is not retroactive, however, meaning that the Phillies will still surrender their first-round pick for signing Jonathan Papelbon.

[Bodhizefa]

lovely. Gotta get things done ASAP right Rube?

It wouldn't have mattered anyway since they're paying Papelbon over $12 million per year. Allegedly, the new rules still take draft picks away when a free agent is offered $12 million or more per year on a contract.

My guess is that we're going to end up seeing a lot of creative language in new contracts for guys who might be near that $12 million threshold. A lot of signing bonuses that may not count against that number seem likely.

[Moonlight J]

Who were they competing against when offering Papelbon that money? The Red Sox? Doubt it

You had Papelbon at that money, Bell at less, and bringing back Madson. They overpaid and gave up the draft pick. Dumb

[Erik]

Remember, Madson has Boras for an agent, and the Phils have never forgiven him for what he and JD Drew pulled. And Boras didn't help things by leaking or fabricating (depending on whom you ask) the parameters of a deal before anything was close to finalized. So perhaps the well was poisoned there.

As I've said before, draft pick compensation is not part of their thought process and hasn't been for almost 5 years. They're in a position where it doesn't have to be.

[Moonlight J]

Remember, Madson has Boras for an agent, and the Phils have never forgiven him for what he and JD Drew pulled. And Boras didn't help things by leaking or fabricating (depending on whom you ask) the parameters of a deal before anything was close to finalized. So perhaps the well was poisoned there.

As I've said before, draft pick compensation is not part of their thought process and hasn't been for almost 5 years. They're in a position where it doesn't have to be.

Sustainability is a problem when you continually bleed off your top picks. It forces you into this spending model that is only going to escalate. At least with the new CBA, there are restrictions in place to control costs of draft picks but none of that is happening in free agency. Philly is aging as a team & they don't have the talent on the farm to readily replace it.