Cardinals sign new TV deal

[Irrelevant Dude]

In the feel-good story of the morning, the Cardinals have agreed to a $1 Billion TV deal, which will provide them substantial additional revenue.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/cardinals-tv-contract-billion.html

 

Oh, the challenges of a small market.

[UMFan83]

Well this should allow them to sign their annual competitive balance pick and fit them into their $150m+ future payroll

[Banedon]

Well this should allow them to sign their annual competitive balance pick and fit them into their $150m+ future payroll

 

They didn't get a competitive balance pick this year, though it was total luck that they didn't.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/2016-competitive-balance-draft-results.html

[UMFan83]

Well this should allow them to sign their annual competitive balance pick and fit them into their $150m+ future payroll

 

They didn't get a competitive balance pick this year, though it was total luck that they didn't.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/2016-competitive-balance-draft-results.html

 

Good, but either way its ridiculous that the Cardinals have an opportunity for one each year. Why are they basing this on "10 smallest markets" and not "10 smallest revenue teams"? Because while St. Louis metro is relatively small their regional fan base is gigantic, and now with a top 10 revenue TV deal it becomes even more ridiculous that they would receive an extra 1st or 2nd round pick almost every season on top of TV revenue that is probably double what the Cubs get.

[Guancous]

MLB doesn't want to reward rich owners who are cheap. The problem is that the smaller markets (Minnesota, Miami) have some of the worst offenders.

 

They should reduce it to three from ten. If they want to keep he system, that is. A better solution would allow trading of draft picks.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A better solution would allow trading of draft picks.

 

People are spazzing out because the Dodgers "bought" a fairly meaningless pick in the 30s. Wait until they "pay" $25m for the 3rd overall pick to the Marlins or something.

[jersey cubs fan]

A better solution would allow trading of draft picks.

 

People are spazzing out because the Dodgers "bought" a fairly meaningless pick in the 30s. Wait until they "pay" $25m for the 3rd overall pick to the Marlins or something.

 

They have the means to block any trade that involves money changing hands.

[Guancous]

That $25 million would allow the Marlins to pay three decent free agents.

 

I can see why the players' union would want it. The owners would be afraid of additional buyers in the market.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well this should allow them to sign their annual competitive balance pick and fit them into their $150m+ future payroll

 

They didn't get a competitive balance pick this year, though it was total luck that they didn't.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/2016-competitive-balance-draft-results.html

 

Good, but either way its ridiculous that the Cardinals have an opportunity for one each year. Why are they basing this on "10 smallest markets" and not "10 smallest revenue teams"? Because while St. Louis metro is relatively small their regional fan base is gigantic, and now with a top 10 revenue TV deal it becomes even more ridiculous that they would receive an extra 1st or 2nd round pick almost every season on top of TV revenue that is probably double what the Cubs get.

 

They probably don't want to encourage teams to tank in Wins-Losses AND revenue.

[sontensei]

MLB doesn't want to reward rich owners who are cheap. The problem is that the smaller markets (Minnesota, Miami) have some of the worst offenders.

 

They should reduce it to three from ten. If they want to keep he system, that is. A better solution would allow trading of draft picks.

 

Im fine with the system just expand it to include all IFA and cuban players, it will increase the talent depth in the first several rounds