Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2,326 comments Add your comment
Ray
February 14th, 2012
8:58 am
The ZIPS is a good idea on paper. But there are so many things it doesn’t take into account. I have said that having data is very valuable to any manager making out a lineup. But there are so many things that go into making out a line up that ZIPS cannot take into account.
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
9:03 am
“Shaun believes that the 3 hitter should not be the player with best combination of OBP and slugging on the team, because The Book says so.”
Here is my question, how do you know who is going to be the guy with the best combo of on base and slugging? I mean if I were to guess would that player would be for the Braves this year…that could be a pretty long list. And do you keep switching that guy if you were wrong at first? How fluid is this process? How many games to you wait to reassess?
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
9:05 am
I have said that having data is very valuable to any manager making out a lineup.
You bet. Only one guy here believes that any of us think differently.
McFann O O o
February 14th, 2012
9:06 am
MFin04 How many games to you wait to reassess?
21…
Ray
February 14th, 2012
9:12 am
From his earlier posts and his comments to me, I don’t think Shaun is saying that it is only the book. Plus he has admitted that he likes to push some buttons on here. MFin, you are right, the lineup is not something that stays in one order. The manager will tweak it based on his gut feeling and what data tells him. IF you went by just the book and you bat this guy lead off or this guy 2nd or 3rd.. or you bat this guy 8th. Here is one aspect that the “book” doesn’t take into account, the mental aspect. If you put a guy in the lead off spot because the book says so and this player has never led off in his life, he may falter because of the pressure he puts on himself. He isn’t comfortable leading off. And before anyone says well these are professional hitters they should be able to hit no matter where you place them, sorry it truly doesn’t work that way. In the same way if a mgr has a guy that has been productive batting 3rd and you shift him to 8th because of the book, some guys will take that as a demotion. And then the mgr has to deal with that part. One of the many aspects the book doesn’t take into account is the mental part of the game.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
9:13 am
Very good article by Matt Gelb on Philly.com about the revenue teams are getting from local TV deals. It kind of shows how archaic the Braves deal is and how they may really be hurt by the lack of revenue that the other teams in Baseball are getting.
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20120214_Inside_the_Phillies__TV_rights_windfall_looms_in_Phillies_future.html
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
9:14 am
And do you keep switching that guy if you were wrong at first? How fluid is this process? How many games to you wait to reassess?
Your mileage may vary, with any manager.
Because player performance is not a straight line, but a curve with peaks and valleys. And those peaks and valleys are discernible only after the fact. Moving players around in the order, like pieces on a Monopoly board, does nothing but almost guarantee that you will have the players out of position for their future performance.
You end up dropping a slumping guy down, just at the time when it’s likely his performance will start to rise; or moving a streaking guy up when his streak is just about to end. You’re always buying high and selling low. No way to run a railroad.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
9:26 am
DOB – What’s your take on the Braves current TV deal, and how it could hurt them competitively going forward, with all of the of the other markets getting a large influx of TV money that the Braves will not be getting?
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
9:32 am
I wonder how much this mechanical adjustment will effect Hanson’s affectiveness? I’ve always thought that the hitch in his delivery added to his deceptiveness as a pitcher.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
9:36 am
Arkansas Transplant – I’ve always thought that the hitch in his delivery added to his deceptiveness as a pitcher.
———————————————————————————-
It didn’t deceive base runners too much. and was causing him to miss games. I don’t think he had any choice no matter what the outcome going forward.
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
9:41 am
I’ve always thought that the hitch in his delivery added to his deceptiveness as a pitcher.
I think his deception has come from the fact that his arm angle and plane are exactly the same for his heater, curve, and slider. All of them. If the adjustments he made don’t effect that, he’s good to go.
DAP
February 14th, 2012
9:46 am
Arkansas T I’ve always thought that the hitch in his delivery added to his deceptiveness as a pitcher.
what made you think that? did you read and article or hear someone talk about it? im wondering, because ive always thought the opposite. rarely have i seen a pitcher show the batter the ball for so long…that doesnt lend itself to deception. like scoots says,he does a good job using the same arm action for every pitching, but it always looked to me that he was showing the hitter the ball for a long time before he threw it.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
9:52 am
oh, don’t get me wrong, I think he desperately needed to adjust his delivery for nothing more than longevity. I was just wondering how that would affect his deception, if any. One things for certain, he’s not very effective injuried or riding the DL, so if these adjustments helps that it’s a good thing.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
10:00 am
DAP, I kind of look at it this way. Have you ever been to the cages before? Sometimes those machine deliver the ball in a continuous motion and some have a pause just before delivery. I’ve had less trouble with timing if the ball is release in one smooth continuous motion than if there’s a pause. To me, you actually begin your swing or preparation once you see that arm begin to move and it’s much easier mechanically if everything is fluid.
DAP
February 14th, 2012
10:10 am
arkansas, gotcha. youre saying you think the timing makes it deceptive. i could see that. and even if he is showing the ball to long, like i was saying, his stuff is nasty, so its not like it helps the hitter that much…i am very interested to see what the new mechanics look like, and how it affects him.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
10:35 am
DAP, yeah it’s not really anything I read just an observation but like you I’m interested in seeing how the new mechanics look and how effective they are… possibly might even improve his effectiveness by adding a couple of mph on his fastball.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
10:36 am
Just hoping for the best.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
10:36 am
If his motion now takes stress off his shoulder and he can locate his pitches better, I am all for it. If this makes him more durable and then add location and movement Hans will be dominating.
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
10:43 am
“Possibly might even improve his effectiveness by adding a couple of mph on his fastball.”
YEAH! Tommy Hanson might finally make his first appearance in the a 7th inning this year!
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
10:51 am
YEAH! Tommy Hanson might finally make his first appearance in the a 7th inning this year!
Actually, he went 7 in nearly half of his first-half starts last year (7 of 17).
jeffrey d
February 14th, 2012
10:53 am
Actually, he went 7 in nearly half of his first-half starts last year (7 of 17).
But there’s not enough to complain about in that
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
10:53 am
MFin04, totally oozing with optimism this morning I see.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:01 am
Actually, he went 7 in nearly half of his first-half starts last year (7 of 17).
scoots, 7 of 17 is 41%. I challenge your use of the terminology “nearly half.” Nearly 60% (actual rate was 59% thus justifying the term “nearly”) of his starts were less than 7 IP in the first half.
jeffrey d, there’s a bit under 60% to complain about in that statement. In the 59% of his other first half starts he averaged 5.1 IP per start.
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
11:04 am
I challenge your use of the terminology “nearly half.”
to-may-to, to-mah-to. Nit-picker.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:05 am
Overall, nearly 70% (68% actually) of Hansons starts last season were less than 7 IP. Or, one can say Hanson averaged 5.1 IP per start in nearly 70% of his starts in 2011.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:08 am
He average 5.2 IP per start last season.
The 2012 starters are going to have to go deeper into games if they are going to lower the work load of the pen and in particular the back of the pen.
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
11:09 am
Regardless of your spread on usage of “nearly”, I think the comment of “might finally make his first appearance in the a 7th inning” is clearly refuted. Nuked. Blog-dominated, as it were. Coach would be proud.
Murph
February 14th, 2012
11:13 am
With Teheran and Delgado pitching out of the pen, oh, and Medlen, the starters need only last a couple of innings.
Brilliant, Fredi… brilliant.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
11:19 am
Murph, how’s that climb up the rankings coming with MW3?
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
11:20 am
Hey, if he had made 8 of 17, instead, would I be given “nearly half”? If so, does that mean I can get a “nearly nearly” for 7 of 17?
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
11:21 am
ncscoots, we might give you half a nearly.
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
11:26 am
AT, thanks, man. Some folks originally from other states close to yours (I won’t mention which state, but Nashville might in it) aren’t quite so charitable with their “nearlys”. Ha!
Ray
February 14th, 2012
11:26 am
If the average start for mlb pitchers is at 5.1,5.2 innings, why are many expecting the Braves pitchers to go into the 7th.
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
11:30 am
Naw, we truly have southern hospitality.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:35 am
I think the comment of “might finally make his first appearance in the a 7th inning” is clearly refuted
Obviously. That had a gaping hole in it nearly as big as the 3rd hitter should be the no more than the 5th best hitter on the team.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:38 am
With Teheran and Delgado pitching out of the pen, oh, and Medlen, the starters need only last a couple of innings.
Brilliant, Fredi… brilliant.
Ha! And I challenge your assignment of this strategy to Fredi. Tony LaRussa had his 3IP per pitcher theory way back in the day. zing.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:39 am
If the average start for mlb pitchers is at 5.1,5.2 innings, why are many expecting the Braves pitchers to go into the 7th.
Because as fans of the Braves, we wish are team to be above average. That would mean they make it to the post season instead of sitting home like an average team.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:39 am
*our… not “are”
eesh that’s bad. Like nails on a chalk board.
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
11:40 am
Because as fans of the Braves, we wish are team to be above average.
Plus, 7IP would make them “nearly” 25% better than average.
Murph
February 14th, 2012
11:47 am
Murph, how’s that climb up the rankings coming with MW3?
AT, I just hit level 65… I’ve playing pretty much every night after the wife and kids are in bed.
Are you still playing? Any idea when the new MLB: The Show comes out?
nolie
February 14th, 2012
11:50 am
for sure the #2 hitter comes up 60 some % of the time with nobody on. and when a player is on and running #2 passes up some good pitches which you do not really want your best hitter to have to do.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
11:50 am
I am not saying the Braves are an average team. I do wish the Braves starters would go more than 5.1 innings. Hopefully the Braves starters will average nearly 6 innings per start.
David O'Brien
February 14th, 2012
11:50 am
DOB – What’s your take on the Braves current TV deal, and how it could hurt them competitively going forward, with all of the of the other markets getting a large influx of TV money that the Braves will not be getting? — JRW
Well, you stated the obvious and what we know — that it looks like a really bad deal, that it wasn’t done with any foresight or much thought as to what would be best for the team or how things could change and why it was probably not wise to do such a long-term deal at that time, etc. At least that’s how it looks. If that’s not the case, I’m waiting for a team or TV official to explain otherwise.
I would stop short of saying “all of the other markets,” however. So far, only a few markets have reaped benefits of huge new regional-type TV deals, including most notably the Angels and Rangers. But yes, it does look like it’ll be the trend among popular teams, and the Braves seemingly have no way of benefiting from it when they could’ve been in position to take advantage as a team popular across a wide region. They’re locked into deal for another couple of decades, with perhaps no way out of it.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
11:57 am
Hopefully the Braves starters will average nearly 6 innings per start.
There’s that term again. For record, the Braves averaged “nearly” 6 IP last season and it wasn’t enough. They need to average at least 6.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:01 pm
if the pen is as deep as it appears it might be, “nearly” 6 might be enough this season
Murph
February 14th, 2012
12:04 pm
It’ll be in both party’s best interest to revisit the TV deal down the road if things play out negatively for the Braves (if more and more teams sign big deals and the Braves find it difficult to compete).
Nobody will tune in to watch the team lose 100 games. Won’t happen anytime soon, but give it 10 years…
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:06 pm
TP, It was a joke. And for the record, the Braves starters averaged “nearly” 6 IP last season, that alone puts them above average.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:08 pm
keep dreamin’ that same ol’ dream Murph even though it makes little economic sense. I always heard that Texans loved to try to renege on established deals………
abeeewright
February 14th, 2012
12:08 pm
nolie, February 14th, 2012, 11:50 am … “for sure the #2 hitter comes up 60 some % of the time with nobody on. and when a player is on and running #2 passes up some good pitches which you do not really want your best hitter to have to do.”
These are interesting points. I certainly would want a better hitter/slugger (an RBI man if you will) at 3, to capitalize on the (hopefully) good OBP guys at 1 and 2.
But, it would seem that your points regarding taking pitches would apply to any hitter that is hitting behind a good OBP base-stealer, whether that guy is hitting 1 (Michael Bourn) or 8 (The Rev).
It seems to me, you would be better off putting great OBP guys at 1 & 2 and great bangers at 3&4, rather than fooling with base-stealing.
I guess it depends on the personnel that you have on your club. Still, it seems that the running game might have more negatives (caught-stealing, lesser hitter at #2) than positives (scoring opportunity in the first inning with no outs in about 30 games).
For instance, if those 2-3-4 guys have .250 BA for those 30 games, you only have about a 58% chance of getting that guy in from second on a hit.
Jbailz
February 14th, 2012
12:09 pm
DOB – I know that your knowledge of the TV deal is limited because in all honesty it’s not first on your list of “things I need to write about” but if you do talk to a team or TV official about it can you ask about an “out clause”? With the types of deals teams are getting now it seems like it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to pay some money to get out of it so we can get a bigger deal with someone else…
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:10 pm
But, it would seem that your points regarding taking pitches would apply to any hitter that is hitting behind a good OBP base-stealer
yes it does but why limit your best hitter by making him pass on good pitches. limit a little bit less good hitter
Arkansas Transplant
February 14th, 2012
12:11 pm
Murph, I try to get at least some time in if I can in the evenings.. usually while I wait on dinner to cook.
I haven’t seen a thing on MLB yet, I’d be interested to see what they’ve change or improved on. It’s definitely a must have once it hits the market.
abeeewright
February 14th, 2012
12:11 pm
nolie, February 14th, 2012, 12:08 pm … “I always heard that Texans loved to try to renege on established deals………”
I thought that was the “Chicago Way.” (I know, I’m stepping across the no-politics line with that crack.)
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
12:11 pm
In ‘98, with Neagle and Millwood as the back of the rotation (and I think we can all agree that is just a tiny bit better than your run-of-the-mill back-end starters), the five starters made 153 starts and average 6.2 IP. I’m thinking that asking the current rotation to be quite that good might be a reach.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:12 pm
I believe that it has been posted on here that there is not an out clause for the Braves on the TV deal.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:13 pm
nah its all them robber oil barons who think they are too good to have to stand up to their word…….
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:14 pm
what a rotation that was huh scoots?
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
12:16 pm
“He average 5.2 IP per start last season. The 2012 starters are going to have to go deeper into games if they are going to lower the work load of the pen and in particular the back of the pen.”
Exactly, drives me crazy when we consistently have guys only making it to the 5th or 6th inning. Tommy Hanson had no games above 7.0 innings pitched. Guy can never be considered an Ace or MVP candidate if he doesn’t pitch more than that at least occasionally. I mean look at Hamels, Halladay, and Lee…those guys go deep.
I realize we had one of the best bullpens in the league, but honestly if your starter is a so called “Ace” you should be better off leaving him out there and not racking up innings on your bullpen.
abeeewright
February 14th, 2012
12:17 pm
As to the TV deal, there’s too little information.
it’s possible, if the internet-TV thing really erupts, that TV deals will become an albatross and that the Angels and Rangers partners go out of business, say, 10 years for now, while the Braves continue to get some revenue from a lesser deal.
Still, extra long deals tend to be a mistake in times of radical change. Kind of like having a 30 year, adjustable rate mortgage that you sign right before interest rates double.
abeeewright
February 14th, 2012
12:19 pm
So, league average for IP by a starting pitcher is 5.2? And an excellent rotation from a time before bullpens were heavily used is 6.2?
And Hanson is around 5.2?
What’s the problem?
If I could have a starter that went 6 IP per start and never once pitched into the seventh inning (much less completed a game), I would be a very happy guy.
Jbailz
February 14th, 2012
12:21 pm
Ray – It wouldn’t shock me if it didn’t have an out clause but whoever signed it in that case needs to be fired. Sign a long term deal that was low to begin with that doesn’t have an out clause? Doesn’t sound too bright to me..
Abeee – I have a TV that connects to the internet, if I get MLB.TV can I watch it on there? I want to see all the Braves games I can but I’m cheap and don’t want to pay for the entire Extra Innings Package. Any help?
ncscoots
February 14th, 2012
12:22 pm
what a rotation that was huh scoots?
Even these years later, it boggles that Maddux managed to lose 9 games that year. Nine! There’s a stat that covers those situations in which a pitcher is in line to take the loss, but the team comes back to tie and take him off the hook. Maddux that year? Zero of those. WHIP under 1, and all the other stuff that goes with it. Nine losses. go figure.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:23 pm
that’s not to say that Tommy could not have pitched a bit farther, perhaps Fredi wanted no more than that.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
12:24 pm
The following is excerpts from the TV revenue article on Philly.com today. This trend with even the worst ratings teams getting large amounts of TV revenue in the near future will really hurt the Braves competitively. I really like where Boras predicts the Dodgers new ownership to get $4-5 Billion in revenue and the Phillies new deal could surpass that.
In San Diego, where the Padres are about to profit, the local ratings decreased 41 percent from 2010 to 2011.
San Diego is the 26th largest market in baseball. Their 2011 local TV ratings were 3.15
the Padres are reportedly on the verge of signing a 20-year deal with Fox Sports possibly worth as much as $1.5 billion.
In Houston, the Astros will earn an average of $80 million a year beginning in 2013 through a joint-venture operation with Comcast, according to the New York Times. The Astros had baseball’s worst local ratings in 2011.
“You can spend $1.5 billion now to get the Dodgers,” Scott Boras told USA Today last week, “but a month later, you’re going to get $4 billion or $5 billion or more for the regional sports network.”
And then Boras predicted the Phillies could land a deal even larger than that of the Dodgers.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:25 pm
what makes y’all think that contracts should have an out clause. the whole idea of a contract is to control what is gonna happen. whole different way of thinking nowadays I guess…….
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:28 pm
If a starter whether its an ace or not has gone 5 or innings and he is simply worn out, it makes no sense to leave him in there. Once a pitcher gets tired you are asking for trouble not only from a ball game stand point but his mechanics will break down and can lead to injury.
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
12:31 pm
“That’s not to say that Tommy could not have pitched a bit farther, perhaps Fredi wanted no more than that.”
Not really true. Tommy Hanson has the keen ability of racking up pitches in a hurry.
Look at his 7.0 innings pitched games
98
105
113
94
112
101
94
Look at his 6.0 innings pitched games
101
116
96
101
97
100
103
108
Murph
February 14th, 2012
12:34 pm
what makes y’all think that contracts should have an out clause
I don’t sign a contract that doesn’t have some form of out clause… my last contract with a publisher had several ways to get out of the deal. If my company was acquired, I could opt out of the deal. If the publisher didn’t bring a certain number of customers to my game, I could opt out of the deal. If the NFL work stoppage had continued through the mid-point of the season, I could opt out of the deal.
Heck, even my cell phone contract has an out clause.
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
12:34 pm
All that being said, I’d just like to see Hanson become more efficient on the mound so that he can consistently pitch deep into games, and raise his 5.2 innings per start average.
Hopefully his new motion might help him become more efficient.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:35 pm
yeah he throws too many pitches, that’s true. but he still might have thrown 112 instead of 94 in a few of those particular games if Fredi wanted him too.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:37 pm
Mfin, that is what over 1500 pitches at a quick glance? There is the key. He is avg around 16 pitches per inning. I will even say nearly 17 pitches per inning. There are not too many 2-3 pitch outs in there.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:38 pm
yeah it’s the age of the escape clause I guess. no more “I gave my word, I’ll stand by it” class any more.
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
12:39 pm
nolie – Maybe, but look at the 6.0 inning pitched games…he had to throw quite a few games over 100 in just 6 inning games. I mean 116 pitches in 6.0 innings? That’s absurd.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
12:40 pm
And Hanson is around 5.2?
What’s the problem?
For starters, Hanson was at 5.1.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
12:43 pm
The Phillies had 18 complete games last year while the Braves had 3. The Starters need to do a better job going deeper into games so the bullpen, as good as it is, doesn’t see nearly as many innings as it saw last season. The September swoon may never had happened if the bullpen wasn’t so over used during the season.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
12:43 pm
Heck, even my cell phone contract has an out clause.
Cable bundles have out clauses. So do leases. They typically come with “early termination fees.”
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:43 pm
I said I agree that he throws too many pitches, he always has, he might always do so. Guy has a fairly high K/IP rate so you know it’s gonna be up there.
truth is that his WHIP is not all that bad though
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
12:44 pm
I mean 116 pitches in 6.0 innings? That’s absurd.
It is. He isn’t as efficient as he could be. He is young though so hopefully all this experience will ferment into something nice.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:44 pm
Generally a strikeout pitcher is going to throw more pitches than a contact guy. A Randy Johnson is going to throw a lot more pitches than a Greg Maddux.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:45 pm
hell pre-nups rule too. everybody wants multi-Muligans.
JRW
February 14th, 2012
12:46 pm
As more and more of the lower tier teams start getting new TV deals over the next couple of years the Braves will fall from mid-level to low level. Their TV deal is really going to handcuff them. With the lack of moves this off season I would say it’s already starting to curb the way they want to do business.
Murph
February 14th, 2012
12:48 pm
yeah it’s the age of the escape clause I guess. no more “I gave my word, I’ll stand by it” class any more.
Stuff happens. Should a restaurant go under because they signed a contract with a food distributor and then the cost of food delivery triples due to rising fuel costs spurred on by the threat of war with Iran? How is that in the food distributor’s best interest? Better for them to renegotiate the deal than to lose customers completely due to things that are out of their control.
Say the Peachtree network gets 2mil viewers now during games… they make a profit by selling advertising time based on 2mil viewers seeing those ads. Now, imagine the Braves are losing 100 games a season and Peachtree is getting 500k viewers during games. Going to be hard for them to turn a profit when the advertisers are paying 1/4 for the same ad time while Peachtree is still paying the same amount to the Braves for the rights to televise their games.
If the competitive landscape changes drastically due to large TV deals signed by other teams, it’ll be in both the Braves’ and Peachtree’s best interest to revisit the deal. I’m not saying this is a certainty, but if the big deals keep getting signed by everyone but the Braves, it’s something that could possibly happen down the road.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:50 pm
Better for them to renegotiate the deal than to lose customers completely due to things that are out of their control….Murph
doesn’t always happen though. I know lots of businesses that went out of business because their rent was too high for them to make but the mall refused to negotiate it down even though you would think that something is better than nothing, it is not always handled thus
MFin04
February 14th, 2012
12:51 pm
“For starters, Hanson was at 5.1.”
I quoted you on the 5.2, now you are changing your quote.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
12:54 pm
If there is no out clause, there is no reason for Peachtree to revisit it. It would not be in their best interest. If the deals are getting bigger for the teams, and I am Peachtree, I am ecstatic that I have a great deal for me.
Murph
February 14th, 2012
12:54 pm
Hence the need for the opt-out clause, nolie. It may not sound “honorable”, but it’s better to be in business than out of business, especially in this day and age.
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:55 pm
that 10P is a sneaky dude MF04. he obviously did not sign a contract tying him to his previous statements. or if he did it had an easy out clause…..
nolie
February 14th, 2012
12:57 pm
not being entirely serious here Murph. it might happen like you say, but Peachtree will have little incentive to do that IMO
Murph
February 14th, 2012
12:57 pm
Ray, you miss the point… how good do you think Peachtree will think the deal is when their viewership numbers decline and they are no longer able to sell ad time during Braves’ games? Unless profit is not a goal they possess, the deal won’t be all that great for them either should the Braves find themselves unable to compete.
Jeff R
February 14th, 2012
1:00 pm
“Well, you stated the obvious and what we know — that it looks like a really bad deal, that it wasn’t done with any foresight or much thought as to what would be best for the team or how things could change and why it was probably not wise to do such a long-term deal at that time, etc. At least that’s how it looks. If that’s not the case, I’m waiting for a team or TV official to explain otherwise.”
– DOB
I wonder who the sharp business exec was who engineered the Braves’ TV deal? I haven’t followed the story that closely, but was the deal the outgrowth of the Turner-AOL Time Warner bomb-of-a-merger (for Ted, it seems)?
Murph
February 14th, 2012
1:01 pm
Money drives the bus… if Peachtree is losing money due to the Braves deal, that’s a lot of motivation to try and get back to the negotiating table.
Again, I’m not saying this will happen anytime soon. It would take years and years for the Braves to fall far enough to where it makes a significant impact on Peachtree’s bottom line… but if everyone in the division has big, shiny TV deals and the expensive free agents that go with them, it’ll happen eventually.
Ray
February 14th, 2012
1:01 pm
Murph, I do get it. But you are asking them to have a vision. They are viewing the Braves as a competitive team. They see them as the only game in town. And if the Braves start to falter, then Peachtree may go to the Braves and say they want a better deal for airing a subpar product.
Murph
February 14th, 2012
1:04 pm
But you are asking them to have a vision.
Yeah, that could end up being a problem… hopefully by the time it becomes an issue (years from now) the correlation between tv deals and free agent spending and winning will be well-documented.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
1:12 pm
I quoted you on the 5.2, now you are changing your quote.
Ha! zing.
Yes. I was looking at the under 7 IP average. So, for seconds the problem was 22 starts. And thirds, Hanson is supposed to be the “ace.” Or in other terms, the “above average” pitcher. It isn’t good that he is only averaging the average while labeled above average.
As you can see, I’m not one of these fans who lowers the bar of expectations for good players. For some reason my high standards for my favorite players are often construed as “hating” on said players. The kid is good. I expect him to be good. Why should I be satisfied he is turning in merely average results?
jeffrey d
February 14th, 2012
1:14 pm
He average 5.2 IP per start last season.
He averaged 5.9, which is .23 away from 5.67.
And you got on to me and scoots about being .09 away from 50%
Face.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
1:16 pm
Going to be hard for them to turn a profit when the advertisers are paying 1/4 for the same ad time while Peachtree is still paying the same amount to the Braves for the rights to televise their games.
Isn’t the “fuss” over the low level of compensation already in the contract? If the team tanks and no one tunes in, the TV contract is going to be a cushion to the TV company. If the team takes off and everyone tunes in, the TV contract is going to be a cash cow for the company.
In short, the issue is sellers remorse, not buyers remorse.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
1:20 pm
And you got on to me and scoots about being .09 away from 50%
Fun with decimal places there Jeffrey. I got on to scoots for being 9 away from 50 and pointed out Hanson was 1 away from 60. 1 being much less than 9 would lend 1 to be more aptly termed “near” than 9.
facepalm.
TennesseePaul
February 14th, 2012
1:23 pm
if Peachtree is losing money due to the Braves deal, that’s a lot of motivation to try and get back to the negotiating table.
But not in a more favorable contract to the Braves. If Peachtree is losing money on a deal that is already favorable to them, they aren’t going to chuck the deal so they can negotiate a less favorable deal.
Jimmy
February 14th, 2012
1:26 pm
“In Houston, the Astros will earn an average of $80 million a year beginning in 2013 through a joint-venture operation with Comcast, according to the New York Times. The Astros had baseball’s worst local ratings in 2011.”
The Astros are going to getting 80 Mill? With the worst local ratings?
Why would Comcast agree to pay them that kind of money? I guess they will still make a profit at the 80 mill starting point.
I have no idea what the Braves take is, but I’m sure it isn’t in that ballpark.
RC
February 14th, 2012
1:27 pm
if Peachtree is losing money due to the Braves deal, that’s a lot of motivation to try and get back to the negotiating table.
If Peachtree is losing money on the Braves deal, they will sell it to another network that can make money on it. Braves will still be locked into the same contract, it will just have a different owner. Like having your mortgate sold from one bank to another…you’ve still got to pay it.