New NBA TV negotiations

[League Circles]

I'd be delighted if NBC picked up Ernie and Kenny, as long as they left the other two guys behind. But of course that's just me. The rest of the nation turns on Chuck and Shaq, rather than flips to a new channel when they start talking.

Good God, Barkley and Shaq are as good as it gets!

[dougthonus]

Yeah, like with Vuc, you already paid Wendell Carter and 2 FRPs, so why not extend him for a big discount to give yourself the best chance of success? I kid, I kid.

The analogy would work if they were trying to pay to bring Kendrick Perkins, but this would be more like if they just traded for Doncic and then extended him.

I don't think anyone who is on the fence about watching will watch or not watch based on the name brand of the show. I think people will forget about that in a couple months.

This isn't true though. TNT consistently has the best ratings in the NBA by a good margin. Also, Inside the NBA itself has outstanding ratings, people tune in for it and stay for half time / post game dramatically more than the ESPN shows. I'm not sure what it is all worth to NBC, but it's definitely a differentiator and not a commodity.

I don't think Ernie Johnson drives any revenue at all. I mean I know he has great chemistry with the guys, but I think they can find someone else to do a good enough job. The draw of the show is really the entertainment value of mostly Barkley, and also Shaq IMO.

Could be, you might be able to just pull Barkley and Kenny and make a good show (not sure if Kenny is a FA, the only one I know for sure is Barkley). You could also try and create your own show, but Inside the NBA is dramatically better than what NBA TV and what ESPN have ever been able to do. It is a legit draw on its own. Both those companies have been doing this for 20 years and can't touch Inside the NBA, what makes you think you will do so out of the gates?

Again, to me really just gets down to cost. Inside the NBA itself is an insanely expensive product. Barkley was making 10M a year, not sure what the other guys were making, but if you assume all somewhat similar, 40M for the stars plus production costs in and of itself is pretty pricey.

Maybe it's wroth it or maybe it's not, like I said, Inside the NBA does draw legit ratings on its own though and extends the ratings on the broad cast pretty considerably, but I can't say the underlying math on that. I'm sure there is an equation you could figure out though as to whether it's worth it for you.

Who knows if they'll even make money on the deal at all? I could easily see all of the new media deals be huge money makers for the nba and actual financial losers for the media partners, though I would assume they have to have negotiated at least some protections for revenue downside into the new deals. The media partners need the NBA wildly more than the NBA needs them.

I have no idea on the math for NBC / TNT / ESPN etc... I mean I don't think any of those stations were killing it on their older, cheaper deals, so it's hard to think they're going to kill it on these new ones that are vastly more expensive either.

[Jcool0]

I'd be delighted if NBC picked up Ernie and Kenny, as long as they left the other two guys behind. But of course that's just me. The rest of the nation turns on Chuck and Shaq, rather than flips to a new channel when they start talking.

Ernie has already said he is staying with TNT. Charles has an out in his contract if TNT loses the NBA (networks will be in a bidding war for him) and I am sure they will let Shaq and Kenny out of there contracts if they lose the NBA. No reason to pay them to do nothing.

[League Circles]

Yeah, like with Vuc, you already paid Wendell Carter and 2 FRPs, so why not extend him for a big discount to give yourself the best chance of success? I kid, I kid.

The analogy would work if they were trying to pay to bring Kendrick Perkins, but this would be more like if they just traded for Doncic and then extended him.

I don't think anyone who is on the fence about watching will watch or not watch based on the name brand of the show. I think people will forget about that in a couple months.

This isn't true though. TNT consistently has the best ratings in the NBA by a good margin. Also, Inside the NBA itself has outstanding ratings, people tune in for it and stay for half time / post game dramatically more than the ESPN shows. I'm not sure what it is all worth to NBC, but it's definitely a differentiator and not a commodity.

I don't think Ernie Johnson drives any revenue at all. I mean I know he has great chemistry with the guys, but I think they can find someone else to do a good enough job. The draw of the show is really the entertainment value of mostly Barkley, and also Shaq IMO.

Could be, you might be able to just pull Barkley and Kenny and make a good show (not sure if Kenny is a FA, the only one I know for sure is Barkley). You could also try and create your own show, but Inside the NBA is dramatically better than what NBA TV and what ESPN have ever been able to do. It is a legit draw on its own. Both those companies have been doing this for 20 years and can't touch Inside the NBA, what makes you think you will do so out of the gates?

Again, to me really just gets down to cost. Inside the NBA itself is an insanely expensive product. Barkley was making 10M a year, not sure what the other guys were making, but if you assume all somewhat similar, 40M for the stars plus production costs in and of itself is pretty pricey.

Maybe it's wroth it or maybe it's not, like I said, Inside the NBA does draw legit ratings on its own though and extends the ratings on the broad cast pretty considerably, but I can't say the underlying math on that. I'm sure there is an equation you could figure out though as to whether it's worth it for you.

Who knows if they'll even make money on the deal at all? I could easily see all of the new media deals be huge money makers for the nba and actual financial losers for the media partners, though I would assume they have to have negotiated at least some protections for revenue downside into the new deals. The media partners need the NBA wildly more than the NBA needs them.

I have no idea on the math for NBC / TNT / ESPN etc... I mean I don't think any of those stations were killing it on their older, cheaper deals, so it's hard to think they're going to kill it on these new ones that are vastly more expensive either.

Yeah, I agree with most of this, I do think there is a lot of value in inside the nba, I just think it's mostly related to Barkley, and I'd definitely pay a lot to get him, I just don't think buying the whole show including the name "Inside the NBA" is necessary to capture that value. But if Barkley isn't a FA and that's what it takes to get him, they should definitely look into that.

[dougthonus]

Yeah, I agree with most of this, I do think there is a lot of value in inside the nba, I just think it's mostly related to Barkley, and I'd definitely pay a lot to get him, I just don't think buying the whole show including the name "Inside the NBA" is necessary to capture that value. But if Barkley isn't a FA and that's what it takes to get him, they should definitely look into that.

Yeah, I think it's all hedging right? Without knowing the costs of everything, it's hard to know where the good hedge is.

LIke if you could bring everything over for free, you'd clearly do it and not try to build a new show around Barkley. So it's really just how much it costs for the various pieces (including the name).

You are probably right (at least in what I infer you are saying) that TNT won't lease the naming rights / cast at a reasonable enough cost to do, and because Barkley is a FA anyway, you can just try and get him and do something new, and that's the most value.

I'd love to keep Barkley and Kenny, and think you could just get a new guy to fit in with them to play the role of Ernie pretty well and Shaq wouldn't be a huge loss, but it's fine if you can figure out a way to bring him on board.

Will also be interesting if ESPN or Amazon just tries to grab those guys for their shows. Of course, could also be Barkley goes non exclusive and does NBC and Amazon.

Either way, will be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out. I agree in the end my idea probably won't work, but it feels like that's a loss for TNT when they could get value for that show to someone. If not NBC, Amazon has no product here and a ton of money, I guess of the two, they'd be a more likely buyer.

[Ice Man]

Good God, Barkley and Shaq are as good as it gets!

Their basketball knowledge consists of Chuck saying that you can't win titles with jump shooters and Shaq carping that today's centers aren't as good as he was. That said, I'd love to have some beers with Chuck. I do understand why he's popular.

[dougthonus]

Good God, Barkley and Shaq are as good as it gets!

Their basketball knowledge consists of Chuck saying that you can't win titles with jump shooters and Shaq carping that today's centers aren't as good as he was. That said, I'd love to have some beers with Chuck. I do understand why he's popular.

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

[dougthonus]

This is actually awesome and great for fans. Local blackouts are so dumb at this point with how many people are moving away from cable. Imo it will be worth it even if it costs a bit more. Or maybe it will make single team plans more realistic.

Sent from my SM-S901U1 using RealGM mobile app

Interesting in the initial article, they discussed removing local blackouts, but none of the big TV deals are related to that, and that hasn't popped back up again.

Hopefully this still happens and wasn't just a theoretical desire. I don't understand how its contractually possible because the teams have generally all sold their local rights with various length contracts already, likely some are long term with exclusivity already built in.

[Ice Man]

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

Well put. I'd have some beers with Stacey, too. But I'd rather hear about hoops from JJ and LBJ.

[dougthonus]

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

Well put. I'd have some beers with Stacey, too. But I'd rather hear about hoops from JJ and LBJ.

You get different things from different people for sure. Also, the persona people have isn't always representative of what the private conversation would be like.

Of people I've spoken to Tom Thibodeau, John Paxson, Joakim Noah, and KC Johnson would be my favorites to spend an evening with for completely different reasons.

[Ice Man]

You get different things from different people for sure.

No doubt. At any rate, I have no problem with the TNT crew. If the rest of the world loves them, fine by me. Bring 'em over to NBC.

[DuckIII]

You get different things from different people for sure.

No doubt. At any rate, I have no problem with the TNT crew. If the rest of the world loves them, fine by me. Bring 'em over to NBC.

Here’s the reason I want to see the TNT crew carry on: The ESPN crew.

I don’t watch pregame or halftime on ESPN anymore. Their coverage is awful except for Woj being there at times to drop his info.

Yes the people matter.

[jnrjr79]

You get different things from different people for sure.

No doubt. At any rate, I have no problem with the TNT crew. If the rest of the world loves them, fine by me. Bring 'em over to NBC.

Here’s the reason I want to see the TNT crew carry on: The ESPN crew.

I don’t watch pregame or halftime on ESPN anymore. Their coverage is awful except for Woj being there at times to drop his info.

Yes the people matter.

100%. I don't mind Wilson (though he's crotchety/cranky to a comic degree), but Stephen A. + Perkins just makes it a nonstarter for me.

The TNT broadcast is great because it's great tv. The chemistry and vibe are really good. Sure, I'd learn more from listening to Zach Lowe, but I'm happy to ingest my "smart" basketball content separately. TNT is more just a hang for me.

[League Circles]

Good God, Barkley and Shaq are as good as it gets!

Their basketball knowledge consists of Chuck saying that you can't win titles with jump shooters and Shaq carping that today's centers aren't as good as he was. That said, I'd love to have some beers with Chuck. I do understand why he's popular.

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

Way smarter, way funnier.

[League Circles]

This is actually awesome and great for fans. Local blackouts are so dumb at this point with how many people are moving away from cable. Imo it will be worth it even if it costs a bit more. Or maybe it will make single team plans more realistic.

Sent from my SM-S901U1 using RealGM mobile app

Interesting in the initial article, they discussed removing local blackouts, but none of the big TV deals are related to that, and that hasn't popped back up again.

Hopefully this still happens and wasn't just a theoretical desire. I don't understand how its contractually possible because the teams have generally all sold their local rights with various length contracts already, likely some are long term with exclusivity already built in.

Ouch, this makes sense unfortunately, and maybe it will be many years before we have local streaming, which sucks so much.

[Ice Man]

You guys are correct that the TNT crew >>> ESPN's team. I should stop my kvetching.

[prolific passer]

Their basketball knowledge consists of Chuck saying that you can't win titles with jump shooters and Shaq carping that today's centers aren't as good as he was. That said, I'd love to have some beers with Chuck. I do understand why he's popular.

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

Way smarter, way funnier.

Ive heard from some that King wants Coby to return to the bench and be a 6th man.

[dougthonus]

Ive heard from some that King wants Coby to return to the bench and be a 6th man.

Coby would be great in a 6th man role. He could definitely be a starter, but ideally, he'd start as an off-ball shooter / secondary creator next to a better dribble drive offensive wing/guard. DeMar is a better offensive creator, but not much of a dribble guy threat that causes a lot of collapsing.

[League Circles]

Charles Barkley is the slightly smarter, snarky version of Stacey King.

Way smarter, way funnier.

Ive heard from some that King wants Coby to return to the bench and be a 6th man.

I'm as big of a Coby fan as there is among us, and I don't think this is insane necessarily IMO. If Zach isn't traded this summer he absolutely has to start for several reasons, and if Demar is re-signed he will obviously start. With those two givens, IMO, it wouldn't be insane to start any of Ayo, Caruso, a re-signed Patrick (pushing Demar to the 2 and Zach to the 1), or even a healthy Ball over Coby, at least until we can make a consolidation trade.

The absurdity that bringing arguably our best all around player off the bench to start the season might actually be a reasonable idea is why one or two of these guys MUST be traded before FA.

[dougthonus]

Way smarter, way funnier.

Ive heard from some that King wants Coby to return to the bench and be a 6th man.

I'm as big of a Coby fan as there is among us, and I don't think this is insane necessarily IMO. If Zach isn't traded this summer he absolutely has to start for several reasons, and if Demar is re-signed he will obviously start. With those two givens, IMO, it wouldn't be insane to start any of Ayo, Caruso, a re-signed Patrick (pushing Demar to the 2 and Zach to the 1), or even a healthy Ball over Coby, at least until we can make a consolidation trade.

The absurdity that bringing arguably our best all around player off the bench to start the season might actually be a reasonable idea is why one or two of these guys MUST be traded before FA.

Simply don't bring back DeMar, problem solved.

There is literally no reason to bring him back given we're already in a tax crunch, it forces us to trade Zach at a lower value point, and we can't win under his timeline, and he fits terribly with the modern NBA offense, and forces all our young players to develop habits around a system that doesn't make sense to play in the long run.