Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 |
Angels Nearing Deal To "Triple" TV Revenue
The Angels are nearing a deal with Fox to "triple" their TV revenues, according to the Times. The deal is supposed to be similar to the 10-year, $340M deal the Dodgers presently enjoy. Could we puhleeze get some HD games in too while you're negotiating, Arte?
Comments:
And its all because of the name change! (and the four consecutive solid seasons, and the two division championships, and the World Series win, and the increased payroll and the rising attendance...)
Does anyone actually GET Fox Sports Net in HD anyway? Even if there were HD games, who would watch them?
# posted by 
: 10/19/2005 09:46:00 AM
: 10/19/2005 09:46:00 AM
Directv actually showed a fair number of Dodger games in HD this year. I'd watch every HD Angels game if it were shown.
# posted by : 10/19/2005 09:51:00 AM
: 10/19/2005 09:51:00 AM
Neither FSN nor FSN2 are in HD on Time Warner, I can tell you that. But I'm about 95% certain the games are always shot with HD gear and are HD up to the transmission trailer.
Hmm. Could we see a $200 million payroll for the Angels someday? Can a SoCal boy dare the Yankee dream? :D
# posted by : 10/19/2005 12:03:00 PM
: 10/19/2005 12:03:00 PM
Considering that the Angels have done worse with higher payrolls than lower (the 2002 squad rang in at $61.5M. The subsequent squads have done less well on more money, making me wonder whether a team on a budget isn't a good thing overall in that it prevents you from hamstringing yourself on aging vets.
<< making me wonder whether a team on a budget isn't a good thing overall in that it prevents you from hamstringing yourself on aging vets. >>
I don't think it's ever really "good", per se. In any management structure, a sharp increase in payroll certainly creates some "waste" and decreasing of efficiency, but a management methodology (especially implementing LEAN/5s-ish self-cleaning) with good metrics should take care of quality. Hardest thing to do, when you're turning a profit, is to lay off people. Which is, more or less, what Depo did. All the money in the world can't prevent Stoneman from having to do the same within the next 2 years or so. But it'll make the team much better.
I don't think it's ever really "good", per se. In any management structure, a sharp increase in payroll certainly creates some "waste" and decreasing of efficiency, but a management methodology (especially implementing LEAN/5s-ish self-cleaning) with good metrics should take care of quality. Hardest thing to do, when you're turning a profit, is to lay off people. Which is, more or less, what Depo did. All the money in the world can't prevent Stoneman from having to do the same within the next 2 years or so. But it'll make the team much better.
# posted by : 10/19/2005 01:24:00 PM
: 10/19/2005 01:24:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.