Photo

Van Pelt leaving SVP & Russillo


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#41 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 10:58 PM

We're talking about the value a guy brings to the network. This is just like talking about free agents in sports. The guy you're willing to pay more is more valuable.

You're talking about surplus value, which would be great if we were talking who's the better bargain.

Of course we'd have nothing to really base that conversation off of. Most valuable, well we do have information that leads to the conclusion that Simmons is more valuable.

And when I'm saying more valuable, it has nothing to do with my personal preference. It's just what they are apparently worth to a company. Simmons is apparently worth more.

BTW, I like SVP, and he's solid with the NBA, but yes, there is a huge disparity there. Simmons is probably the best NBA guy in terms of media types that aren't solely devoted to that sport.

#42 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 10:59 PM

Simmons- 3.74 Million Twitter followers. 
SVP- 823K
 
For what it's worth. 



Noteworthy

#43 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:03 PM

We're talking about the value a guy brings to the network. This is just like talking about free agents in sports. The guy you're willing to pay more is more valuable.

You're talking about surplus value, which would be great if we were talking who's the better bargain.

Of course we'd have nothing to really base that conversation off of. Most valuable, well we do have information that leads to the conclusion that Simmons is more valuable.

And when I'm saying more valuable, it has nothing to do with my personal preference. It's just what they are apparently worth to a company. Simmons is apparently worth more.

BTW, I like SVP,and he's solid with the NBA, but yes, there is a huge disparity there. Simmons is probably the best NBA guy in terms of media types that aren't solely devoted to that sport.

 

We are (I am) talking about multiple things.

I'm saying if you limit the discussion to your criteria... only looking at who brings what to the table... I agree the edge goes to Simmons, but also feel it is closer to even then you do.

The discussion started with you saying ESPN obviously thinks Simmons is more valuable. Well, I don't see how you can have that discussion without including surplus value.

 

Is Simmons any better with the NBA than SVP is with golf?

Russillo is better than SVP with the NBA (and the NFL)... and I think Russillo and Simmons are equal NBA guys. You notice that Russillo is ahead of SVP when talking NBA... but it's not so much of a difference where SVP doesn't add to the conversation. I think it would be the same if it was SVP and Simmons talking NBA.

 



#44 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:05 PM

Simmons- 3.74 Million Twitter followers. 

SVP- 823K

 

For what it's worth. 

 

Both have a lot of fake followers. A quick audit shows only 65% of SVP's followers are real, and Smmons is at 55% real.

Simmons would still have the larger following of real accounts.

It's noteworthy in their ability to self-market, and create worth to the the company... but again, that discussion doesn't mean anything if you aren't also including their respective salaries.



#45 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:07 PM

We're talking about the value a guy brings to the network. This is just like talking about free agents in sports. The guy you're willing to pay more is more valuable.


You're talking about surplus value, which would be great if we were talking who's the better bargain.


Of course we'd have nothing to really base that conversation off of. Most valuable, well we do have information that leads to the conclusion that Simmons is more valuable.


And when I'm saying more valuable, it has nothing to do with my personal preference. It's just what they are apparently worth to a company. Simmons is apparently worth more.


BTW, I like SVP,and he's solid with the NBA, but yes, there is a huge disparity there. Simmons is probably the best NBA guy in terms of media types that aren't solely devoted to that sport.

 
We are (I am) talking about multiple things.


I'm saying if you limit the discussion to your criteria... only looking at who brings what to the table... I agree the edge goes to Simmons, but also feel it is closer to even then you do.


The discussion started with you saying ESPN obviously thinks Simmons is more valuable. Well, I don't see how you can have that discussion without including surplus value.


 


So you don't see how I can talk about who's more valuable to ESPN while only talking about who's more valuable to ESPN?

#46 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:12 PM

So you don't see how I can talk about who's more valuable to ESPN while only talking about who's more valuable to ESPN?

 

It doesn't make sense to discuss potential to generate revenue if you don't discuss salaries.

 

And if you limit the discussion of value to simply who is more well rounded... then it's basically a wash.



#47 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:20 PM

It makes complete sense in the context of this discussion. If we were arguing how much they should be paid, that'd be different. Or if we were talking about taking one guy at x salary vs one at y salary. Again, I don't know what we'd base that conversation off, but at least it would make sense in context. But just asking who's more valuable, well that is simply answered by who brings in more money, and what ESPN has been willing to pay is a good indicator of that.

Anyway, I look forward to you referencing player salaries during the next player MVP debate.

#48 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:25 PM

It makes complete sense in the context of this discussion. If we were arguing how much they should be paid, that'd be different. Or if we were talking about taking one guy at x salary vs one at y salary. Again, I don't know what we'd base that conversation off, but at least it would make sense in context. But just asking who's more valuable, well that is simply answered by who brings in more money, and what ESPN has been willing to pay is a good indicator of that. Anyway, I look forward to you referencing player salaries during the next player MVP debate.


I've brought it up in previous MVP discussions, glad to do it again.

If you limit the discussion to who is more well rounded, it's pretty close to even.

If you want to discuss who brings in more money... that's fine, but if you don't then include what they cost... then that is a limited discussion when talking value.



#49 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:30 PM

It makes complete sense in the context of this discussion. If we were arguing how much they should be paid, that'd be different. Or if we were talking about taking one guy at x salary vs one at y salary. Again, I don't know what we'd base that conversation off, but at least it would make sense in context. But just asking who's more valuable, well that is simply answered by who brings in more money, and what ESPN has been willing to pay is a good indicator of that. Anyway, I look forward to you referencing player salaries during the next player MVP debate.



I've brought it up in previous MVP discussions, glad to do it again.


Haha ok. Don't recall you or anyone ever doing that.

#50 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:36 PM

It makes complete sense in the context of this discussion. If we were arguing how much they should be paid, that'd be different. Or if we were talking about taking one guy at x salary vs one at y salary. Again, I don't know what we'd base that conversation off, but at least it would make sense in context. But just asking who's more valuable, well that is simply answered by who brings in more money, and what ESPN has been willing to pay is a good indicator of that. Anyway, I look forward to you referencing player salaries during the next player MVP debate.


I've brought it up in previous MVP discussions, glad to do it again.


If you limit the discussion to who is more well rounded, it's pretty close to even.


If you want to discuss who brings in more money... that's fine, but if you don't then include what they cost... then that is a limited discussion when talking value.


Just about everyone but you is talking about who brings in more money or produces more (well let's insert all sorts of definitions for valuable here that don't deal with how much they're paid) in this type of discussion. So you're just having an entirely different discussion.

#51 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:40 PM

But I'll make this simple to get back to the context of more valuable that was being used.

If both Simmons and SVP are free agents, who should get paid more based on their ability to generate revenue?

#52 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:40 PM

Just about everyone but you is talking about who brings in more money or produces more (well let's insert all sorts of definitions for valuable here that don't deal with how much they're paid) in this type of discussion. So you're just having an entirely different discussion.

 

Okay, then I'm having an entirely different discussion.

 

What's the argument for Simmons being more well rounded?



#53 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:41 PM

But I'll make this simple to get back to the context of more valuable that was being used.

If both Simmons and SVP are free agents, who should get paid more based on their ability to generate revenue?

 

IDK, how much will each cost?

 

It is dumb to talk about ability to generate revenue, and not talk about cost.

 

 

 

But to play your game... Simmons would get more, because he can point to Grantland generate 10% of ESPN.com's overall audience. Tangible numbers.

Of course, that was also with ESPN promotion behind it, ESPN.com linking to Grantland...  so if Simmons is paid on his ability to generate revenue based on that... his contract will be inflated. It's not like he created that audience on his own.



#54 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:42 PM

Just about everyone but you is talking about who brings in more money or produces more (well let's insert all sorts of definitions for valuable here that don't deal with how much they're paid) in this type of discussion. So you're just having an entirely different discussion.

 
Okay, then I'm having an entirely different discussion.
 
What's the argument for Simmons being more well rounded?


I'm not making that argument.

#55 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:45 PM

But I'll make this simple to get back to the context of more valuable that was being used.


If both Simmons and SVP are free agents, who should get paid more based on their ability to generate revenue?

 
IDK, how much will each cost?
 
It is dumb to talk about ability to generate revenue, and not talk about cost.


Well I guess I didn't make it simple enough. They're free agents. You have the ability to offer whatever. Who would you be willing to offer more to? Who would get more on the open market?

#56 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:46 PM

I'm not making that argument.


It's just a question, and you did say you weren't sure that SVP was more well rounded... so you at-least think there is an argument for Simmons being so.



#57 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:48 PM

But I'll make this simple to get back to the context of more valuable that was being used.


If both Simmons and SVP are free agents, who should get paid more based on their ability to generate revenue?

 
IDK, how much will each cost?
 
It is dumb to talk about ability to generate revenue, and not talk about cost.
 
 
 
But to play your game... Simmons would get more, because he can point to Grantland generate 10% of ESPN.com's overall audience. Tangible numbers.


Of course, that was also with ESPN promotion behind it, ESPN.com linking to Grantland...  so if Simmons is paid on his ability to generate revenue based on that... his contract will be inflated. It's not like he created that audience on his own.


Simmons was also able to apparently get the richest contact in ESPN history before Grantland. His worth goes beyond that. I do get what you're saying about ESPN helping to generate clicks. I assume that's considered in these evaluations though and the same could be held against SVP.

#58 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:48 PM

Well I guess I didn't make it simple enough. They're free agents. You have the ability to offer whatever. Who would you be willing to offer more to? Who would get more on the open market?

 

I edited in a further answer to your question.

But again.... I thinks Simmons has slightly broader skills. I think those skills are slightly more 'valuable'...  but if you don't factor in the cost to obtain, it's a pointless discussion.



#59 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,294 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:54 PM

I'm not making that argument.



It's just a question, and you did say you weren't sure that SVP was more well rounded... so you at-least think there is an argument for Simmons being so.


I said that Simmons is much better with the NBA, better with the NFL, and I'll say he's probably better with baseball. SVP is much better with the college sports and golf. NFL is easily the most important here and then the NBA and college football are the other important sports from a national perspective. Baseball and college basketball are much more important regionally IMO.

#60 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,675 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 11:57 PM

Simmons was also able to apparently get the richest contact in ESPN history before Grantland. His worth goes beyond that. I do get what you're saying about ESPN helping to generate clicks. I assume that's considered in these evaluations though and the same could be held against SVP.

 

Also, I'm seeing that Simmons was the 2nd highest salary at ESPN.

 

That James Andrew Miller who recently wrote an oral history about ESPN tweeted on September 7, 2012 that Bill Simmons is the 2nd highest paid "talent" at ESPN behind Chris Berman and ahead of Rick Reilly.

And per the Big Lead:
 

Bill Simmons and ESPN waged intense contract discussions over the last few weeks, and this became the sticking point on Bristol’s end: It’s difficult to justify paying Bill Simmons $6+ million a year for the revenue he was driving.

And ultimately, that’s what the contract talks boiled down to: Simmons is the most powerful member in sports media, an innovator with the most popular podcast in sports, a vanity website, the “original blogger” who carved out a niche as the Boston Sports Guy and smoothly transitioned to being a creator of the Emmy-award winning 30-for-30 series, but … were any of those ventures generating significant revenue?

The $6 million figure comes from a person with knowledge of the negotiations who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

And from ESPN’s side of the table, the answer was, no, not for the salary he wanted.

Simmons has been understandably frustrated at the network for not being able to monetize his popular podcast, and he’s let it be known that Grantland was never going to be a site whose goal was to generate millions of dollars with posts geared toward getting linked on Facebook or “videos going viral.” And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it should be applauded.

But when ESPN goes down the line and rattles off how much revenue Mike & Mike’s radio show pulls in (you may agree with Simmons on the show, but it’s a money maker), and how much money First Take brings in, well, a bottom-line business like ESPN eventually balks at making that big of a pay-day to a writer (who does dabble in TV). And President John Skipper has mentioned this to more than a few people: Hey, we’ve got Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd contract talks ahead, if we set the bar around $6 million, what do we pay those guys?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=