Dodgers, Fox Sports talking $6-billion TV deal

[Auggie]

L.A. Times / 11-25-12

Fox Sports could pay at least $6 billion to retain the Dodgers’ television rights, three parties familiar with the negotiations said Sunday.

The deal could be worth three times what the Dodgers’ new owners paid for the team and almost 20 times the value of the Dodgers’ current television contract.

The deal is not done, the parties said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing negotiations.

SNIP

The Dodgers’ deal, proposed for 25 years, would average $240 million per year at $6 billion, or $280 million per year at $7 billion.

LINK: http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-fox-sports-6-billion-tv-deal-20121125,0,4821671.story

When the deal closes, the Dodgers will make more money from local TV alone than 26 franchises take in from all of their revenue streams (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dodgers---7-billion-tv-deal-will-widen-chasm-between-mlb-s-rich-and-poor-040842261.html)

As some local (Bay Area) pundits put it, it's not just who you can sign, but who you can write off as well. Sign a Barry Zito-type contract that doesn't work out? No problem -- write it off and overpay someone else.

Bad news for Giants fans. Horrible news for Rockies, Padres and D-Backs fans. Heinous news for baseball fans.

[Upton]

1. We knew this was coming....

Giants will still compete..they always find a way. It's particularly bad news for the Rockies, D-Backs, and Padres..all of whom were in the bottom third in payroll last year.

It's all about the haves and the have nots in MLB..this just makes it worse.

[Auggie]

2. They'll be able to wave a ton of money at Lincecum after next year ...

or Pagan, next week. Wouldn't that be the ultimate "Fuck You S.F. Giants?"

If not Tim, Sandoval in 2015. Or Buster / MadBum in 2017.

They can fuck with us just for fun.

[Upton]

3. That's the only thing that would bother me..

if the Dodgers started to poach the Giants top players. I don't think Pagan is back anyway, and Lincecum could be gone this off season or sometime next year..

Otherwise, I don't mind the Dodgers wasting money. Did you see how they spent $27.5 million for the negotiating rights to a pitcher who has a 2.80 ERA in the Korean league? That's an okay ERA, but do they honestly expect those numbers to hold up in MLB?

[Auggie]

4. Yeah, I saw that

They'll still need to exercise some kind of sound judgment eventually, though it's easier to take risks and spend recklessly when there's money to burn.

[hughee99]

8. I can just hear the conversation in the GM's office.

"Hey, we need to take some of the pressure off of our $20 million grossly under-performing and often injured outfielder (Crawford), our $15 million substantially under-performing shortstop (Ramirez) and our significantly under-performing $15 million starting pitcher (Beckett). We should sign another significantly under-performing player to a ridiculously high contract. Vernon Wells is not available, you say? How about Lincecum, then?"

[Auggie]

10. Heh ...

seriously though, I'm thinking in terms of a deliberate, preemptive move against a long-term rival. I know they've been happening forever, but with that much disposable money it can become less of a some-time occurrence and more of a yearly plan.

[JonLP24]

5. Rangers & Angels already got their massive TV deals

Why not the Dodgers? Since the Yankees cut out the middle man for their TV deal, teams need these deals to compete w/ Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Angels, and now Dodgers.

[Auggie]

6. And the small market teams do ... what?

Continue the same cyclical pattern of rebuilding every five to seven years when they lose their star players to free agency.

If this is how MLB really wants to operate then they need to eliminate some franchises and create more valuable media markets. Otherwise it's a sham.

[JonLP24]

7. I agree

At this point I accept it for what it is but agree with you.

[joeybee12]

9. This is a match made in heaven for me...

I hate Fox Sports and I hate the Dodgers...now my vile can be directed simply at one entity! What a time-saver!