![]() |
|
|
#31 | |
|
nothing more than a fan
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,985
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: St. Louis, Mo
Posts: 3,115
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
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.
__________________
“Our next home stand follows this road trip.” “I just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah.” says on the day before Easter Mike Shannon |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
2013 NL MVP and WS MVP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 6,385
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
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.
__________________
Last edited by _Sir_Charles_; 11-27-2012 at 02:02 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
The Boss
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30,719
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
Quote:
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.
__________________
www.redsminorleagues.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
2013 NL MVP and WS MVP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 6,385
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
Quote:
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).
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Where's my chair?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 19,799
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
Quote:
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.
__________________
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2012 AND 2013! ![]() Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
2013 NL MVP and WS MVP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 6,385
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
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.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 4,305
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
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 Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Making sense of it all
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 26,130
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
Major League Baseball could pay off the National Debt lol
__________________
An excited shade of Red
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
CELEBRATION TIME
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: San Marcos, CA
Posts: 13,939
|
Re: So, the Dodgers are insanely rich
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.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |