Skip to content

The Angels new TV deal more than pays for Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson

Dec 9, 2011, 12:30 PM EST

Angels logo

As I noted yesterday, the Angels’ offers to Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson make sense given that they are/were in the process of negotiating a new television deal.  Well, Bill Shaikin has the details on it, and everything makes a ton of sense now. The Angels are making a mint.

The deal is for $3 billion over 20 years. That means $150 million a year. The current deal they have is for $50 million a year.  You don’t need a calculator to see that those new contracts are more than paid for.

Heck, there’s enough money now to go sign Prince Fielder too. Make him the bullpen catcher or something.

  1. fordman84 - Dec 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM

    Yes, but they are spending the next 5 years worth of TV money THIS YEAR, and will have new holes over the next 5 years pop up.

    • chrisdtx - Dec 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM

      Not following. Their payroll for ’12 will be ~$150 million. Unless I’m missing something, Pujols and Wilson didn’t get $330 million up front…

    • b7p19 - Dec 9, 2011 at 12:42 PM

      They have only spent 40 mil of the 100 mil in new money they’ll be getting from TV this year and for the next 5 (Pujols and Wilson). They could sign another 20 mil player (Feilder) and still have 40% of the 100 mil of new money remaining.

      Basically, it’s hard to bash them for what they’ve done if these figures are true. Now we just have to wait and see if David Stern is OK with all of this.

      • stabonerichard - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM

        Why don’t the Brewers and Pirates and Reds and the rest of the league’s owners do this? Don’t they want to win?!

      • brucewaynewins - Dec 9, 2011 at 5:03 PM

        stabonerichard – Dec 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM
        Why don’t the Brewers and Pirates and Reds and the rest of the league’s owners do this? Don’t they want to win?!

        You have to wait till your current TV contract is up or nearing up. Also not every market will get the same value in conract due to market size. I believe the Reds recently got a new tv contract just a few years ago. I believe FSO is giving them a decent amount so they don’t lose the Reds to their own network like they did the Indians. Plus with the Reds being on in all of Ohio except Toledo they earn more that way. If anything the Indians helped the Reds.

        Anyone know who all has their network besides Redsox, Indians, and Yankees? I think the Mets do but I’m not sure.

  2. Thunder Chicken - Dec 9, 2011 at 12:48 PM

    Why would Selig allow the Fox/Angels deal to go through after nixing what appeared to be a similar deal between Fox and the Dodgers?

    • b7p19 - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:08 PM

      To get rid of Frank McCourt?

    • kylemoss - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM

      Because mccourt didnt not have the money. He was trying to get the deal to try and back tract and pay the money to players he already owed. Thats why, and MLB and Selig were trying to get mccourt to sell the Dodgers.

      • juicejuicer - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

        Because McCourt had structured his deal in a way where HE would personally get a big percentage of it up front for personal use. Whereas the Angels are using their deal in the appropriate manner.

    • fordman84 - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:10 PM

      Because McCourt wanted to get all the TV money up front for himself and then sell the team minus that money. It is what Hicks tried to do with the Rangers, and that was overturned as well. As soon as the new group bought the Rangers, the TV deal was allowed. Just wanted to make sure that McCourt didn’t increase the debt load on the Dodgers before he unloaded them.

      • Thunder Chicken - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:17 PM

        I see. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance in these matters. I was asking the question assuming that the money in the Fox/Dodgers deal would’ve stayed with the Dodgers, regardless of ownership.

    • pbannard - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM

      The other factor is that the Dodgers, as the team with more history in the area, have a larger fan base and therefore a larger viewership, which should lead to a larger TV deal. You wouldn’t expect the Yankees and the Mets to get the same dollar value deal either. Of course, given recent circumstances, the gap between the Angels and Dodgers may be narrowing.

      • pitperc - Dec 9, 2011 at 3:08 PM

        The Angels outdrew the Dodgers last year (with 11,000 fewer seats x 81 home games). The gap started narrowing about a decade ago . . .

  3. Lukehart80 - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:17 PM

    This encapsulates the competitive balance problem in baseball. As has been said on this site dozens of times, baseball is largely a local game, so the money each team gets from its cut of the national TV contract pales in comparison with figure like this. Aaron says the Twins deal is for roughly $12M right now. I would guess teams like the Indians and other smaller markets have similar deals.

    The Rays are proof that teams with lower income CAN compete, but they’re at a huge disadvantage. Baseball has an edge on basketball in that one player’s exit cannot decimate a team’s chances, but MLB needs to find a way to more equitably distribute the collective revenues of 30 entities that are not actually separate from one another, but instead, are tied together. One team should not get a $138M advantage just from being in a more populated area.

    • chrisdtx - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM

      I’m no expert in these financial matters, but isn’t what you’re describing in the 2nd graf revenue sharing? Which, you know, already exists.

  4. Charles Gates - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:28 PM

    Pffft. Let’s see the Rays top this with their computer geeks!

    • stabonerichard - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

      The Rays’ owner, like the vast majority of the rest of the league owners, don’t want to win as much.

  5. bigleagues - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    More evidence that Stuart Sternberg had NO idea what he was doing when he signed the Rays current TV deal in 2006.

    Rays get $20mil per year for their cable deal, a deal that broadcasts the Rays throughout the 4th largest State in the US.

    • florida727 - Dec 9, 2011 at 3:46 PM

      Regardless of market size, you still need to pull in viewership. The problem for the Rays will likely never completely change. Tampa is a transient area. I used to joke all the time that I’m a ‘native’ floridian because I’ve been here 15+ years. Like many that now call Tampa Bay home, I came from up north. I have no loyalty (sorry) to the Rays. I root for another team. I’ll watch the Rays when they play the Yankees or the Red Sox, but other than that, I rarely watch them. I’m guessing I’m not alone in that sentiment. It’s unfortunate really. They are entertaining.

  6. baron30 - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:00 PM

    No imagine the kind of money the Yankess print with their tv deal.

    • b7p19 - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:10 PM

      Kind of Apples and Oranges since they own their own network, but yeah, I’m sure they make more than this form that enterprise.

      • Alex K - Dec 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM

        I’m not sure why a team like the Angels doesn’t try and start their own RSN. It’s almost like printing money.

      • b7p19 - Dec 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM

        I always wondered that too. Maybe in conjunction with the Dodgers? Seems like between the two teams, college sports, maybe the MLS, they would be able to fill the time.

      • Alex K - Dec 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM

        I thought about that, but I don’t think the Dodgers have the money to help out right now. Do either of the NBA teams have RSN’s? What about the Angels, Lakers, and Galaxy forming one with the ability to let the Dodgers buy in when they have the funds? Programing sholdn’t be a problem no matter what teams buy in. Hell, the Yankees, Mets, and Knicks all have thier own RSN’s (I think the Rangers share the Knicks, but that’s beside the point)! There is always going to be enough programming.

        If I’m Arte Moreno I would have tried to start an RSN before I locked myself into a 20 year contract. I wonder if he has some type of buyout….

      • Alex K - Dec 9, 2011 at 4:24 PM

        After just a second more of thought how about this….Angels, Lakers, Galaxy, Ducks all join in and form an RSN. I’m not sure if it’s possible, but they could try and get the rights to PAC-12 broadcasts. That, in my back of the cocktail napkin math, is a metric shit ton of money to be made.

  7. mondzy805 - Dec 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM

    As a Dodgers fans, I’m so jealous.

  8. chuckj1234 - Dec 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    The Angels owner wanted to start his own network when he bought the team. Don’t know why it fell through.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (5457)
  2. Y. Tomas (4480)
  3. H. Ramirez (4291)
  4. J. Lester (3208)
  5. C. Headley (2426)
  1. M. Kemp (2340)
  2. J. Upton (2265)
  3. J. Bruce (2185)
  4. Y. Cespedes (2132)
  5. A. LaRoche (2036)