Regarding the RSNs, there appears to be some impetus for changes to benefit fans. When I am in Louisville, the Reds are blacked out on MLB.tv, so I only miss the Marlins when the Reds are opponents. In Jacksonville, it's untenable. I can drive up to Cincinnati, but usually opt for the AAA Bats during those games. I can watch the replays at my leisure (if the Marlins win or something interesting occurred). I've heard many people have much more widespread blackouts to contend with.
The blackouts have been a major issue, one that MLB claims will be rectified if they get out from under the thumb of the RSNs. Of course you're also then getting out from under the thumb of a lot of billions of dollars in revenue. The other issue with some of the RSNs is the growing number of cord cutters who can't access games in some markets without access cable.
For sure, the demise of the regionals realigns their income expectations. I liked your uncertainty comment. The longer-term contracts and heretofore guaranteed income are obviously intertwined more crucially for low-income teams. This is fascinating to me. Accordingly, maybe more internal fights to restrain the decade+ deals because owners are obviously unable to self-restrain? On the other hand, it's fun to watch the handwringing over deals such as Stanton, Strasburg, Baez, and all the previous litany of silly deals. Of course, the wave of these deals in the last few years portends lots more fun as they go south. We're back to the "success" criteria. Perhaps it's just a natural karmic thing, i.e., a fool and his money are soon parted
I think a big reason the longer deals will continue to be handed out is they bring down the AAV of contracts, and the AAV is what is counted toward luxury tax. So teams would rather give a 10-year, $100 million deal, for example, than an 8-year, $100 million deal.
I fully agree. Would set a dangerous precedent. Most of all, I found it interesting that Hawk, who is normally not one who looks to make waves, took his request to the Chicago Tribune even before the letter was received by the Hall of Fame, according to their communications chief.
Regarding the RSNs, there appears to be some impetus for changes to benefit fans. When I am in Louisville, the Reds are blacked out on MLB.tv, so I only miss the Marlins when the Reds are opponents. In Jacksonville, it's untenable. I can drive up to Cincinnati, but usually opt for the AAA Bats during those games. I can watch the replays at my leisure (if the Marlins win or something interesting occurred). I've heard many people have much more widespread blackouts to contend with.
The blackouts have been a major issue, one that MLB claims will be rectified if they get out from under the thumb of the RSNs. Of course you're also then getting out from under the thumb of a lot of billions of dollars in revenue. The other issue with some of the RSNs is the growing number of cord cutters who can't access games in some markets without access cable.
For sure, the demise of the regionals realigns their income expectations. I liked your uncertainty comment. The longer-term contracts and heretofore guaranteed income are obviously intertwined more crucially for low-income teams. This is fascinating to me. Accordingly, maybe more internal fights to restrain the decade+ deals because owners are obviously unable to self-restrain? On the other hand, it's fun to watch the handwringing over deals such as Stanton, Strasburg, Baez, and all the previous litany of silly deals. Of course, the wave of these deals in the last few years portends lots more fun as they go south. We're back to the "success" criteria. Perhaps it's just a natural karmic thing, i.e., a fool and his money are soon parted
I think a big reason the longer deals will continue to be handed out is they bring down the AAV of contracts, and the AAV is what is counted toward luxury tax. So teams would rather give a 10-year, $100 million deal, for example, than an 8-year, $100 million deal.
I must agree with our friend, David Samson, that the Hall will not set a precedent by honoring Dawson's request.
I fully agree. Would set a dangerous precedent. Most of all, I found it interesting that Hawk, who is normally not one who looks to make waves, took his request to the Chicago Tribune even before the letter was received by the Hall of Fame, according to their communications chief.