Rogers wants to air MLB net in Canada (+ ratings tidbits)

[dagger]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le4354296/

The cable company owns Sportsnet, which has a heavy baseball focus through the season and carries the majority of Blue Jays games. It has seen a surge in baseball viewership for its Blue Jays broadcasts, with data from BBM Canada showing a 42-per-cent surge among adults aged 18-34 this year over last.

Attendance at Rogers Centre is averaging about 4,700 above last year when the Jays were 25th in attendance. Now they are 20th in home attendance.

Given the TV and home game numbers, is it too early to ask Beeston if he plans to reward the fans with a proportionately higher payroll next season? After all, his mantra is "if you come, we will spend". Well, home attendance is running about 20% over last year, and the TV audience is up 42% in the prime demographic, which usually translates into higher ad revenues.

[RapsFanInVA]

Wouldn't it be more fun to take the extra cash earned, pile it all in his bedroom, then roll around in it? I don't expect him to spend more.

[dagger]

Wouldn't it be more fun to take the extra cash earned, pile it all in his bedroom, then roll around in it? I don't expect him to spend more.

No, not his bed, but I bet it would help the Rogers CEO get a bigger bonus so he can roll around in it.

[J-Roc]

You're welcome to ask him whatever you want at the next fan forum thingy,

[Attonitus]

Yeah now they will think, hey the numbers are up so we don't have to spend as long as we keep selling them on the future, a MLSE staple.

[flatjacket1]

Too bad we don't have Fielder. I hear hes worth every penny.

[Randle McMurphy]

Too bad we don't have Fielder. I hear hes worth every penny.

I really don't understand this comment. Rogers shouldn't spend money on the Jays (something they clearly have a ton of) because a player on another team in Fielder likely won't be worth his contract long-term? Who cares?

If we're ever lucky enough to see this ownership spend to win, I trust AA enough to make the right calls with that money.

[flatjacket1]

Too bad we don't have Fielder. I hear hes worth every penny.

I really don't understand this comment. Rogers shouldn't spend money on the Jays (something they clearly have a ton of) because a player on another team in Fielder likely won't be worth his contract long-term? Who cares?

There is a cap on how much we can spend. Not one enforced by the league but every single team in the league has a limit. If we waste too much of that limit on a player who doesn't produce, later when we are contending we won't be able to add big FA when we need too. Texas never bought a big name until after making the WS.

There is a time and a place to spend, last year was neither the time nor the place. (This year I'm all for buying a Cole Hamels type pitcher)

[Randle McMurphy]

There is a cap on how much we can spend.

Clearly. Rogers has shown that much during their time owning the team.

There is a time and a place to spend, last year was neither the time nor the place. (This year I'm all for buying a Cole Hamels type pitcher)

Last year would have been a fine time to spend (if the Jays had added another 1B/DH, LF, and SP, their situation and record would be far different and they wouldn't be wasting another elite season of Jose Bautista), just as this year will be. I didn't expect much then, though, and I certainly don't expect much going forward.

If Rogers is making money off the Jays (and they clearly are...probably more money than ever before), they have very little incentive to change much of anything about this operation. Why take a risk and put millions more in if you don't have to? They never have before.

[flatjacket1]

Clearly. Rogers has shown that much during their time owning the team.

Also clearly when AA shot down Rogers plead for FA's such as Jason Bay. And when we offered FA Carlos Beltran a contract worth more than 13M annually for longer than 2 years last season. But your right. Somehow.

Last year would have been a fine time to spend (if the Jays had added another 1B/DH, LF, and SP, their situation and record would be far different and they wouldn't be wasting another elite season of Jose Bautista), just as this year will be. I didn't expect much then, though, and I certainly don't expect much going forward.

Then we wouldn't be spending much more. We'd have a 2 or 3 year window to compete then we'd either have to throw out money left right and center to compensate for declining Fielder or just start sucking wind. Patience is a virtue?

If Rogers is making money off the Jays (and they clearly are...probably more money than ever before), they have very little incentive to change much of anything about this operation. Why take a risk and put millions more in if you don't have to? They never have before.

They will re invest it in the future. There is now a soft cap on top of Rogers own budget concerns (even the Yankees can't afford luxury tax) and they know their ability to draw fans will depend on who they bring in.

We will spend, AA has said it, Beeston has said it, everybody has said it. We just aren't going to build a team of FA's, but rather add in FA's once we are successful. It makes perfect sense.

I'm incredibly happy we didn't sign Fielder, just because it allows us to sign another Fielder caliber player when the time is right.

[Randle McMurphy]

Also clearly when AA shot down Rogers plead for FA's such as Jason Bay. And when we offered FA Carlos Beltran a contract worth more than 13M annually for longer than 2 years last season. But your right. Somehow.

The Jays have had one-above average payroll since Rogers bought the team in 2000. And this is one of the richest corporations in sports that hasn't been even able to get above the major league average.

I know you're young and only started following the Jays recently, but please don't try to tell me that Rogers has made any sort of financial commitment to winning with this organization (regardless of any supposed Jason Bay offer). They haven't. It's been entirely a profit venture, one that has made them a ton of money.

Then we wouldn't be spending much more. We'd have a 2 or 3 year window to compete then we'd either have to throw out money left right and center to compensate for declining Fielder or just start sucking wind. Patience is a virtue?

Why does spending last year mean they would have only had a two or three year window to compete? Isn't that what the entire point of building a strong farm system is? So you can continue to win over an extended period of time like the Yankees and Red Sox do? That's an incredibly weak excuse for not spending.

We will spend, AA has said it, Beeston has said it, everybody has said it. We just aren't going to build a team of FA's, but rather add in FA's once we are successful. It makes perfect sense.

That's nice that you believe what are essentially PR statements from management, but there is no good reason to. Not based on the history of this ownership.

[flatjacket1]

That's like saying based on your history you'll never get in a car crash.

[Randle McMurphy]

That's like saying based on your history you'll never get in a car crash.

Whose history?

[Kaizen]

In all seriousness, what do you two and others expect to get of this argument that has been said 1 million times? Some people think the Jays will never spend and others think they are waiting. Has anybody actually changed their opinion because of what somebody said on this board. It is such a stupid argument and I do not know why some feel the need to continually talk about it. What is the end goal? What are you trying to accomplish by having this stupid discussion? I personally think the Fielder contract is terrible and the Tigers will regret it. I personally wanted Darvish but what can you do now? The time has passed so I do not care enough to talk about it anymore.

That article is 99% about the MLB Network too and yet somehow this thread has not even discussed it. I have wanted it since it came on the air in the US so I hope Rogers wins and it comes to Canada.

[Randle McMurphy]

In all seriousness, what do you two and others expect to get of this argument that has been said 1 million times?

Nothing at all. I just found the Fielder statement odd and out of place here.

I do hope to see the MLB Network in Canada, especially since Rogers never made use of their license for a Canadian baseball channel.

[Mattd97]

Also clearly when AA shot down Rogers plead for FA's such as Jason Bay. And when we offered FA Carlos Beltran a contract worth more than 13M annually for longer than 2 years last season. But your right. Somehow.

i like how every time you tell this story it gets grander and grander. it went from rogers saying he could spend and he chose not to, to rogers was pleading with him to sign free agents.

also as randle said the idea that signing fielder or fielder-type player woudl mean that we were all-in for the next 2-3 years then would bottom out is entirely laughable, but hey as even you said -- why get a fielder type player now when we can get a fielder type player in a couple years. seems legit.

[Hamyltowne]

In all seriousness, what do you two and others expect to get of this argument that has been said 1 million times?

I'm not sure it's even that much of a debate. Randle Mac's cynicism doesn't amount to an argument. Flatjacket's optimism is almost quixotic. AA is handcuffed by the miles of red tape that comes with being owned by a conglomerate. Hamyltowne is struggling in Fantasy Baseball (injuries!). Holmes is steady trolling. Schad is doing the New York Times crossword puzzle. Spykelee is watching Major League 3. And see you me and Julio down by the school yard.

[flatjacket1]

also as randle said the idea that signing fielder or fielder-type player woudl mean that we were all-in for the next 2-3 years then would bottom out is entirely laughable, but hey as even you said -- why get a fielder type player now when we can get a fielder type player in a couple years. seems legit.

Too bad AA didn't sign Fielder caliber player Jason Bay (who had similar fWAR before FA) who is not only Canadian but terrible nowadays. Too bad. Imagine we had Bay's nice contract as well as his amazing stat line.

Big contracts almost never pan out, and there is no point signing one until you are certain that are going to make the playoffs with said player. Eventually they become garbage.

Fielder would help the team for a couple years but then we got a 200M mistake for the rest of his contract. If you want a bad contract why don't we just take back on Well's massive deal? (That Rogers handed out mind you, when the GM asked for money he received it)

[spykelee]

In all seriousness, what do you two and others expect to get of this argument that has been said 1 million times?

I'm not sure it's even that much of a debate. Randle Mac's cynicism doesn't amount to an argument. Flatjacket's optimism is almost quixotic. AA is handcuffed by the miles of red tape that comes with being owned by a conglomerate. Hamyltowne is struggling in Fantasy Baseball (injuries!). Holmes is steady trolling. Schad is doing the New York Times crossword puzzle. Spykelee is watching Major League 3. And see you me and Julio down by the school yard.

I couldn't bring myself to watch that movie, the first two where just too awesome to be tarnished with that junk.

[Schad]

In all seriousness, what do you two and others expect to get of this argument that has been said 1 million times?

I'm not sure it's even that much of a debate. Randle Mac's cynicism doesn't amount to an argument. Flatjacket's optimism is almost quixotic. AA is handcuffed by the miles of red tape that comes with being owned by a conglomerate. Hamyltowne is struggling in Fantasy Baseball (injuries!). Holmes is steady trolling. Schad is doing the New York Times crossword puzzle. Spykelee is watching Major League 3. And see you me and Julio down by the school yard.

FYI: I fking suck at crosswords. Completing a Saturday Times crossword is an aspirational goal on par with scaling Everest or going home with Ellen Page after a debauched night at the Dome*.







*This will only make sense to the few Haligonians, who will simultaneously retch at the mention of the Dome while wondering why it's necessary to mention that a night at the Dome was debauched.