So, the Dodgers are insanely rich

[Always Red]

Really good thread and this hits at my sweet spot...I'm in the media and I love baseball...so yipppeee!

The reds have been operating in the new baseball economy and the other "small market" teams that are still on their heals are going to be the ones dusted in this.

Someone mentioned the new media deal is why the Reds signed Votto to the deal they did and that is EXACTLY right, getting Votto for tha amount will seem like chump change...BP deal is the same way and DO NOT be surprised if the Reds SPEND on Broxton, Madson a corner OF like Swisher and/or a 3B like Wright...I am not kidding...with the money that is coming in from media they are going to lock up STARS for 5-10 years with contracts that are in the 12-20 million dollar range annually and they will be ahead of the pack (at first).

The economy of baseball changed with the Padres and Cubs being sold...not the Dodgers...things are about to get really fun.

We are about to see some MAJOR shifts in the game and the players (not on the field but who is involved in the business of baseball) that are making things happen...All this said...when the Reds do their new deal I would bet that it isn't for a penny LESS thank $3billiion...not kidding...the farm is in pretty good shape, they have invested in real talent at the big league level and have had some recent success that says they like it and will continue to grow their fanbase again...teams like the dbacks, indians, royals, marlins, mariners, astros who haven't been part of the divisional conversations for a while are the ones who will have the most ground to make up...to score a "big deal" or what is considered a big deal now.

I would say that the league actually may contract a few of these teams OR move them to other countries in Europe, Asia or more specifically China..I could see a day when the Japanese baseball league and MLB become affiliated to the point that it becomes another AL and NL setup...the teams in that/those leagues will be able to play in the WS...there will be regular season games in Japan and other countries and so on...I could even see a team in the Middle east, obviously south Ameerica, China...Cal Ripken has been working with the Chinese for several years to learn baseball....so this is just the tip of the iceberg for this sport and the league and the money that is about to come into it!

I know I went off track (a little) but the reason the media deals are so big is because the media dollars are about to go through the roof because of international dollars being spent, not just national dollars.

Thanks for posting this, MartyFan; after reading this, I feel better about the future of the Reds in this smaller market than I have in a long time.

[MikeThierry]

Does anyone see the Reds getting a $3 billion TV deal like MartyFan believes? If we're talking about those kind of numbers, it makes my eyes pop thinking about the kind of numbers my team will get when it signs it's new deal.

[_Sir_Charles_]

MLB's deal is 12.4 billion/8 years. (worth 51.6 million per year for each team)
Padres was 1 billion/20 years. (50 million per year)
Dodgers is 6 billion/25 years. (240 million per year)
Rangers 3 billion/20 years (150 million per year)
Angels just over 3 billion/20 years (roughly 150 million per year)

So even if the Reds version is closer to the Padres version, there's still a ton more money flowing in than most fans realize. That MLB deal seems to get overlooked quite often. And with revenue sharing, it equalizes it even more for the smaller market teams. So yeah, the Reds have money to spend.

----------------

Some more info. Since the revenue sharing system currently in place makes all teams put 31% of their local tv income into the pot to be divided among all the teams, this means that the Dodgers deal, for example, is putting 74.4 million into the collective pot each year and the Reds get 2.4 million of that each year. But in a few years (2016 I think) the 15 biggest market teams won't be eligible for revenue sharing. They'll still have to ante up every year, but they won't get a check from the pot. So that would effectively double the annual income for the Reds from revenue sharing. 4.8 million a year from the Dodgers alone. Or from the few I listed above, 12.2 million per year from just those 4 clubs.

Also, teams are required to spend at least 25% more on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing. So if the Reds get say 50 million in revenue sharing, they'd have a minimum payroll of 62.5 million.

Yep, the money is there folks. And then some.

[dougdirt]

Also, teams are required to spend at least 25% more on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing. So if the Reds get say 50 million in revenue sharing, they'd have a minimum payroll of 62.5 million.

Yep, the money is there folks. And then some.

But everyone else is also getting the money. There is more money to spend for everyone. It doesn't really level the playing field, it just means that players are going to get more money from everyone.

The Reds may be able to now offer someone like Latos $3-4M more per year. But it also means that the big market teams can offer him $6-8M more per year.

[_Sir_Charles_]

But everyone else is also getting the money. There is more money to spend for everyone. It doesn't really level the playing field, it just means that players are going to get more money from everyone.

The Reds may be able to now offer someone like Latos $3-4M more per year. But it also means that the big market teams can offer him $6-8M more per year.

Yet. It doesn't level the playing field yet. In 2016 the top 15 market teams won't be eligible to get revenue sharing income. They'll have to pay into the kitty, but only the smaller market teams get the money...and larger portions of it as well.

And don't forget the luxury tax that puts a soft cap on the payroll of those big market teams. Sure, they'll have more money to spend, but for every penny they go into that luxury tax bracket it's just more money to the little guys to even further level the playing field. It's far from perfect...but it's certainly a BIG step in the right direction (the draft changes too).

[REDREAD]

Yet. It doesn't level the playing field yet. In 2016 the top 15 market teams won't be eligible to get revenue sharing income. They'll have to pay into the kitty, but only the smaller market teams get the money...and larger portions of it as well.

Thanks for all the detailed info you posted.
I didn't realize this.
In all honesty, when I look at this, I have to say that the owners are making huge strides at closing the gap in payroll disparity.
I love the fact that teams are required to spend at least 25% more than the make in revenue sharing.. That alone will help parity a lot.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Thank Doug. If it wasn't for him starting this thread, I never would've looked all that stuff up. And I did just find one thing I misunderstood, the luxury tax...the money collected from that...it doesn't go back to the general revenue sharing fund. It goes towards other purposes for MLB overall.

[klw]

Just how much money the Dodgers have at their disposal may become apparent once Greinke ends up being signed.

\http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...s-tuesday.html

Yesterday, we learned that the Dodgers have started asking about Zack Greinke and the rival Angels already view them as their biggest threat to sign the hurler away. Here's the today's news on the right-hander with the latest up top..

One person involved in the talks believe that Greinke's deal will eclipse C.C. Sabathia's seven-year, $161MM deal, according to Buster Olney of ESPN.com (via Twitter).

[Matt700wlw]

Major League Baseball could pay off the National Debt lol

[RBA]

It's one thing for the Reds to lock up a Votto in today's market. However if the Dodgers can easily top an offer by 20 million a year if they choose, that's another story.

So with my powerball winnings, I buy the Reds for $500million and than turn around and sell Votto's contract to the Dodgers for $1 Billion.