spockmaster said:

Dunno about that. The LA metro area DOES have a few million more people than the entire state of michigan, BUT the cable deal for the Dodgers covers basically just that area (plus a small handful of others) while FSD covers all of michigan plus parts of OH, WI, and IN. If FSD retains the Tigers, the deal could be quite large because of the overall viewing area and population.

Of course, it might also be nowhere in the area of that deal. I just wouldnt discount it being a large one given the coverage FSD has.

Click to expand...

But the deals are made based on ad revenue, and that is going to come mainly from the greater Detroit area. You don't see ad's for car dealerships in Traverse City during the Tiger games, just ones relatively close to Detroit. Which is what I mean by medium market. The broadcast area is much larger than the ad revenue coverage area is.

Fair point.

Thumb said:

But the deals are made based on ad revenue, and that is going to come mainly from the greater Detroit area. You don't see ad's for car dealerships in Traverse City during the Tiger games, just ones relatively close to Detroit. Which is what I mean by medium market. The broadcast area is much larger than the ad revenue coverage area is.

Click to expand...

but all of those other cable outlets pay FSD to be part of their package. Ad revenue is based on viewership.

This article sums up how shitty the Tigers future looks.

http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/a...worst_contract/18135149?linksrc=foxmiddle_mlb

tomdalton22 said:

This article sums up how shitty the Tigers future looks.

http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/a...worst_contract/18135149?linksrc=foxmiddle_mlb

Click to expand...

Not really.

I posted and read that article Saturday or this morning,

aw Fuck, let's just get rid of Cabrera and Verlander so we can make someone extremely happy.
any Tigers player over 10 Million should be traded.
sarcasm button now off.

Always worrying about 5 years down the line, live and root for the Tigers in the present.

kalinecountry said:

I posted and read that article Saturday or this morning,

aw Fuck, let's just get rid of Cabrera and Verlander so we can make someone extremely happy.
any Tigers player over 10 Million should be traded.
sarcasm button now off.

Always worrying about 5 years down the line, live and root for the Tigers in the present.

Click to expand...

nobody would take Verlander....heck...I doubt anybody would give you much for Miggy either.

We are knocking on the door to Luxury Tax. Gotta' believe we will over the threshhold by the end of September, even without adding new rival players.

How many contracts did we purchase from our minor leagues last season? What was that total dollar amount, from April to October?

Thumb said:

I disagree. Like I said we are a medium at best, market. That new TV deal is not going to be anywhere near what the Dodgers or Yankees get, not even the same ballpark.

Fact is we're only in the top 10 because our owner leans more towards being a fan than a shrewd businessman, but it won't last forever.



(and yes, before a certain someone asks, I can see the future)

Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I thank that I read that Metro-Detroit is the number 11 media market, just below Miami, not too long ago. I think that places us better than a medium at best market. Just because the rest of the country sells us short doesn't mean that we have to sell ourselves short. Metro Detroit is still 3-4 million people.

3,734,090 from 2010 census.

NYY
NYM
LAA
LAD
SFG
OAK
WSN
CHC
CHW
BOS
TEX
PHI
TOR
ATL
HOU

All of these teams have larger media markets than DET. That puts DET 16th at best.

http://www.janson.com/rights/top-50-u-s-markets/

Keep it mind that is just US and doesn't include Toronto. NYY (YES Network) and NYM (SNY Network). SNY's coverage area includes parts of PA, VT and CT. I get both (whether cable or DirecTV) and I am 5.5 hours from NYC (farther than Mackinaw City to DET).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Detroit is 14th in Metropolitan ranking. Again, with some cities hosting multiple teams, it would put DET 17th at best.

I think when it comes to market size the biggest factor is the number of households that the local TV carrier gets to. FSD is reported to be delivered to 3.2 million households. The Tigers were 8th in total revenue in 2013 with $262M.

The Tigers' may had $262 Revenue in 2013, but they lost money.

Tigers' Operating Income

2014 = $7.5 Mil
2013 = -$0.4 Mil
2012 = $8.4 Mil
2011 = -$29.1 Mil
2010 = -$29.5 Mil
2009 = -$26.3 Mil
2008 = $4.6 Mil
2007 = $8.7 Mil
2006 = $3.5 Mil
2005 = $7.9 Mil


MLB Teams with negative Operating Income in last 10 years (ranked by Forbes team value)

1. NYY x6 (19.8 Mil Metro pop.)
2. LAD x2 (13.0 Mil Metro pop.)
3. BOS x3 (4.6 Mil Metro pop.)
4. CHC 0 (9.5 Mil Metro pop.)
5. SFG 0 (4.5 Mil Metro pop.)
6. PHI x2 (6.0 Mil Metro pop.)
7. TEX x2 (6.7 Mil Metro pop.)
8. STL x1 (2.8 Mil Metro pop.)
9. NYM x5 (19.8 Mil Metro pop.)
10. LAA x4 (13.0 Mil Metro pop.)
11. ATL 0 (5.5 Mil Metro pop.)
12. SEA 0 (3.6 Mil Metro pop.)
13. WSN 0 (5.8 Mil Metro pop.)
14. CHW x1 (2014, -$2.7 Mil, 9.5 Mil Metro pop.)
15. DET x4 (4.3 Mil Metro pop.)
16. BAL 0 (2.7 Mil Metro pop.)
17. SDP 0 (3.2 Mil Metro pop.)
18. TOR 0 (6.0 Mil Metro pop.)
19. MIN 0 (3.9 Mil Metro pop.)
20. CIN x1 (2014, -$11.4 Mil, 2.1 Mil Metro pop.)
21. ARZ x3 (4.3 Mil Metro pop.)
22. COL x1 (2.9 Mil Metro pop.)
23. PIT 0 (2.4 Mil Metro pop.)
24. CLE x1 (2014, -$1.9 Mil, 2.1 Mil Metro pop.)
25. MIL 0 (1.6 Mil Metro pop.)
26. HOU 0 (6.1 Mil Metro pop.)
27. MIA x3 (8.8 Mil Metro pop.)
28. OAK 0 (4.5 Mil Metro pop.)
29. KCR x1 (2014, -$6.5 Mil, 2.2 Mil Metro pop.)
30. TBR 0 (2.8 Mil Metro pop.)


Wins-to-player cost ratio
(Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Playoff wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average)

1. OAK 169
2. TBR 166
3. PIT 154
4. HOU 143
5. MIA 130
6. ATL 126
7. CLE 124
8. SDP 119
9. STL 118
10. KCR 114
11. COL 105
12. ARZ 104
13. BAL 104
14. MIL 98
15. CIN 96
16. MIN 93
17. SEA 93
18. NYM 91
19. WSN 89
20. BOS 87
21. DET 86
22. TEX 77
23. TOR 75
24. LAA 70
25. CHC 70
26. SFG 68
27. CHW 65
28. LAD 57
29. PHI 56
30. NYY 51

Spending more on payroll does nothing unless you are getting value for the money being spent.

yes...the Tigers have too large of a payroll and don't spend wisely.

Where's the win to player cost when it comes to losing quickly in the playoffs? It's risk/reward. The Oakland's and TB's of the world are good at collecting wins per money alloted..but when it comes to playoff success, they suck.

As a fan (not my money) I want the playoff success with higher spending.

So to answer your statement "Spending more on payroll does nothing unless you are getting value for the money being spent." -- It gives then playoff wins and WS titles. Giants are 26 on that list, I doubt they care.

And where are our WS wins to show for it? The Royals have won more WS games than we have in the last 10 years. The Cards are ninth on that list and theyve won 2 WS in the last 10 years. Yes, sometimes spending like that works if you can put the right team together and get lucky like the Giants (who are then terrible in the years they dont win). If we're talking playoff wins here, and ultimately WS wins, then we're obviously not doing a good job of it.

spockmaster said:

And where are our WS wins to show for it? The Royals have won more WS games than we have in the last 10 years. Yes, sometimes spending like that works if you can put the right team together and get lucky. If we're talking playoff wins here, and ultimately WS wins, then we're obviously not doing a good job of it.

Click to expand...

The point was more than Oakland and TB who haven't done jack shit. Then look at SF and money does matter.

Theyve done pretty decently with as little payroll as they can. Imagine if our GM was as smart as them.

spockmaster said:

Theyve done pretty decently with as little payroll as they can. Imagine if our GM was as smart as them.

Click to expand...

I get that..but so far it still seems to come down to high payroll. If you want to compete for a WS, money matters.

Who would you rather be a fan of: lower payroll no playoff success o high payroll with playoff success. Can you imagine if the Tigers got to the playoffs year after year and we never won a playoff series? We'd all be bitching for a higher payroll..

They both matter. You can't really do without both, not very often at least. 8 of the last 11 WS ('04-'14) have been won by Boston, SF & STL, they all have smart GMs who know how to build a good team with a big payroll, even if it doesnt work every year, and they know how to properly reload the team for multiple titles in a short time period even if theyre not consecutive. Teams like OAK and TB do a good job being smart and doing what they can with a tiny payroll, and then you get teams like NY and Philly who won once with a huge payroll but have basically completely crippled themselves (especially Philly) with stupid contracts and a barren farm system.

Meanwhile, we have a GM who builds unbalanced teams while demolishing the farm system and running up the payroll that collapses in the playoffs because its unbalanced and everyone but him can see how and when the collapse is coming. We are quickly heading towards NYY/Philly status without the recent WS win to show for it.






tl;dr If we don't win this year, I'm done with DD as our GM. We're going to need a rebuild and we should do it with a fresh vision. I wish the Dodgers hadn't scooped up both Friedman and Zaidi.