Could the Dodgers’ giant TV deal be the beginning of the end for giant TV deals?

57 Comments

We talk a lot about the skyrocketing TV deals baseball teams are getting from cable operators these days. One wonders, though, whether or not we’re witnessing a bubble that’s going to soon burst. If it does, we may look at the Dodgers’ new TV deal as the beginning of the end.

The Dodgers TV deal with Time Warner is reported to be upwards of $8 billion. To pay for that, Time Warner is going to charge other carriers (Direct TV, Dish Network, other cable systems) $4 or $5 per subscriber for the right to carry the new Los Angeles Dodgers network they’re operating, with those costs passed on to the other carriers’ customers. This is how all sports TV rights deals go. It’s just way bigger with the Dodgers and Time Warner.

Many — probably most — of the customers who are seeing their cable bill go up are not Dodgers fans. They just want to watch Nick Jr. or History Channel or BBC America or any number of other channels. But, because you can’t (for the most part anyway) pick and choose which channels you get, the non-sports watchers are helping subsidize the sports watchers. Again, this is how it always works, but this time the rate hikes in question are going to be quite large.

Joe Flint and Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times write about this today, and they talk to one former TV executive who thinks that such a pattern is unsustainable:

But non-sports fans and pay TV companies are increasingly frustrated at having to pick up the tab for big sports deals. There have been calls to sell sports channels “a la carte,” or separately from other programming.

The Dodger agreement with Time Warner Cable may be a tipping point.

“That is the solution everyone should be looking at seriously,” said Derek Chang, a former senior executive at satellite broadcaster DirecTV. Such a move, he added, may be the only way to lower the cost of TV sports. “Ultimately the market for fees would then reset.”

All it takes is a political groundswell — and someone talking about how we should think of the children who just want to watch “Spongebob” is a great way to get that going — for Congress to wade in and either begin legislating or begin threatening to legislate with respect to cable TV in such a way that a la carte pricing becomes available.  If it does, companies in Time Warner’s position won’t be able to demand across-the-board rights fees like they are now and, in turn, they won’t be able to offer sports teams like the Dodgers the billions of dollars in rights fees like they’re currently doing.

If that bubble bursts, down with it comes the TV money. Then down go the franchise values, which are escalating due to the TV money sports teams are attracting. If team values go down, team payrolls will eventually come down too.  No aspect of baseball finances would be untouched by it.

Will it happen? I don’t know. And if it does, I don’t know when. But I also know that no bubble in history has ever failed to burst, and that when they do burst, the bubbles tend to take down just about everyone.

Reggie Jackson — Reggie Jackson?! — has a problem with Manny Machado’s hustle

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Ever since the NLCS, Manny Machado‘s character, attitude and, most of all, his hustle, has been called into question. A couple of arguably dirty plays, a ground ball or two not run out and a less-than-ideal postgame quote will do that to a guy. The level of criticism, however, has gone way too far. That talk of Machado’s attitude has eclipsed talk of his undeniable baseball skills is evidence of that, but the specific folks calling Machado out for it is even better evidence of that.

I give you Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson, speaking to Wallace Matthews of the New York Daily News, in response to Machado saying he was not always going to be “Johnny Hustle”:

“I can’t understand a player saying that. That ain’t going to play here,’’ he said. “I was a pretty good player and I ran hard every single at-bat. It takes talent to run fast, but it doesn’t take talent to run hard. Effort is the least we can ask of ourselves.’’

Reggie Jackson is an all-time great whose plaque in Cooperstown was well-deserved, but it is a flat out lie to suggest that he was known for his hustle. Quite the opposite, actually.

Before his three-homer game in the 1977 World Series, Reggie Jackson’s most well-known on-field feat as a New York Yankee involved his distinct lack of hustle. It came in a nationally-televised game against the Boston Red Sox on June 18, 1977. The Sox led-7-4 in the bottom of the sixth inning. Reggie was out in right field. Jim Rice hit what should’ve been a single to right field, but Mr. October was slow getting to it and Rice legged it into a double. What happened next became instant history:

It’s pretty astounding to me that the Daily News piece — written by a guy who has covered the Yankees for decades, and which includes lots of other references to the Bronx Zoo-era Yankees — omits that story, but I suppose we’ll leave that to Wallace Matthews and his editors.

As for the play itself: I’m not gonna defend Billy Martin here — he was a jackwagon and a hothead — and I’m not gonna slam Jackson as some sort of loafer or unprofessional either. He was a generational talent who, on that play and probably some others, just didn’t give it his all. The play and the game washed out as almost all plays and almost all games in baseball do. Jackson was on that team to hit 32 homers, drive in 110 runs and almost single-handedly win the Yankees’ first World Series in 15 years, and that’s exactly what he did.

Jackson’s lapses in hustle or judgment were far outweighed by his hitting skill and superstardom. The Yankees happily accepted that tradeoff, as did the A’s and Orioles before them and the Angels after them. it was part of the deal, and that deal got them a future Hall of Famer who served as the signature baseball personality of his era.

Yet, for some reason, baseball teams cannot seem to accept the same with Machado. Assuming his less-than-ideal playoff performance and attitude is the norm — and I do not think that’s the safest of assumptions — who on Earth can think that a shortstop/third baseman with his talent, skills and track record is more notable for his negatives than his positives? Which is what they must think, because that is basically the only thing we have heard about Machado for the past month.

It’s almost as if there is an incentive on the part of baseball teams and those carrying their water to make Machado seem less valuable as he hits the free agent market. An incentive to focus on the negative aspects of his game and character while downplaying the positive ones. It’s almost as if the Yankees — who have a clear need for a player like Machado, have been rumored to be interested in him and who can afford him — have a greater incentive than anyone to publicly cast him as less valuable than he truly is.

I guess it would be worse if, say, an actual member of the Yankees front office was disingenuously disparaging Machado in this way, but having a Yankees legend do the same is still pretty bad.

Oh, wait: