Marlins, Yelich sign 7 Year, $49.5 Million Deal

[rmc523]

He'd still be league minimum for 2016 since I don't think he's super-two, so he'd be making twice that. But you best believe that $3.5 million for 2017 is a huge discount. Heck, even $7 million for 2018 should be a discount. My hunch from the very beginning is that 2018 is either new TV deal (They can opt out after 2017, right?) or Loria finally sells. Either way, all of these contracts start to jump up in 2018 and I can't imagine that they can be sustained unless the payroll operates at a $100 million minimum. The question is, with all the flexibility for 2016 and 2017, how much more money gets poured in?

Apparently from what I found, the TV deal officially ends in 2020, but they're trying to get a new one negotiated to start in 2017 or so.

[Bobbob1313]

They're definitely going to pull some penny-wise, pound-foolish shit with this deal, aren't they? Like, agree to get the deal started two years early, but giving up a relatively huge amount of money down the line so they can increase revenue in the very short term.

[emkayseven]

sounds about right, then they'll sell the team and let it be someone else's problem

[thatnewguy]

Look, I know that this hasn't been the most high profile team but how the hell did the Marlins get locked into a TV deal that only pays them $18 million per season during a time when local TV contracts have never been higher? Did they do this deal before all that happened? What, they signed it in 2002? Why on earth did they sign some 20-year contract then? That seems crazy to me, to try and project a growing market and sign a 20-year contract. If not, if it was in or around 2012 like I imagine it would be (I don't know why 2010 is sticking in my head), how did they get suckered into such a low ball figure? Seriously. The Dodgers signed a $280 million per year deal in 2013. I'm not saying they could get what was nearly $10 billion for L.A., but the Marlins deal is about 6% of that. I mean, don't the Astros make nearly $100 million per season on TV rights? They literally had a 0.0 rating for a game last season.

[emkayseven]

Their TV deal was signed super early on, right before the big explosion of TV contracts. The Braves signed a similar 20 year contract in 2007.

[HUGG]

Braves have, by far, the worst tv deal in baseball

[Nick]

Ted Turner's rolling over in his grave.

[Party]

Look, I know that this hasn't been the most high profile team but how the hell did the Marlins get locked into a TV deal that only pays them $18 million per season during a time when local TV contracts have never been higher? Did they do this deal before all that happened? What, they signed it in 2002? Why on earth did they sign some 20-year contract then? That seems crazy to me, to try and project a growing market and sign a 20-year contract. If not, if it was in or around 2012 like I imagine it would be (I don't know why 2010 is sticking in my head), how did they get suckered into such a low ball figure? Seriously. The Dodgers signed a $280 million per year deal in 2013. I'm not saying they could get what was nearly $10 billion for L.A., but the Marlins deal is about 6% of that. I mean, don't the Astros make nearly $100 million per season on TV rights? They literally had a 0.0 rating for a game last season.

Marlins TV deal was signed in 2004 or 2005. They were capitalizing on the team's popularity after the championship. Finances of the sport have changed dramatically in 10 years. Where they failed is not including an opt-out clause like the Phillies did.