The Hot Stove League

[parisisstale]

Yeah, Floyd's a great guy but I wouldn't expect too much from him in the way of production.

[cryptique]

i think iztiris will play ss and jacque jones traded but generally agree on the line up and the likely injuries.

Yeah, I forgot about Izturis. He and Cede

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, Floyd's a great guy but I wouldn't expect too much from him in the way of production.

Yep.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

not anymore (we can watch the Braves on TBS and the redsox have their own channel) but, if we lived anywhere else we'd have to move back to New England. That just SUCKS. Sorry Dude.

 

MLB is trying to clamp down on stations like TBS and WGN playing out of market games. They want to control all out of market broadcasts.

[rareair]

That ain't sayin' much, on both counts.

 

i know.

 

the cubs are who i thought they were.

 

 

MLB is trying to clamp down on stations like TBS and WGN playing out of market games. They want to control all out of market broadcasts.

 

it also seems they are in a pissing contest with Comcast.

 

i might actually have to purchase mlb.tv for my computer, which i guess is what mlb is counting on for people who cannot or will not get direct tv.

[MrRain422]

Major League Baseball has been at war with it's fans for years. Just another fine example.

 

I'm considering MLB.tv too though. Does anyone know how much that would cost for the whole season? I tried to find info on the website, but for now they're just trying to push their off-season package (who's paying to watch spring training? Seriously), so they aren't advertising the regular rate.

[cryptique]

According to this page, for 2006 it was $79.95 for MLB.tv for the full season, and if you bought the "All Access" package that included GameDay Audio (which I'm assuming are audio-only feeds), it was $99.95.

 

They'll probably goose the prices a bit for 2007, but that should give you an idea.

[bobbob1313]

So, I see the Cubs signed Cliff Floyd.

 

That could be kind of a scary lineup this year. I still don't think they have enough decent pitching, though.

 

What's their batting order going to be? Something like this?

 

1. Alfonso Soriano CF

2. Mark DeRosa 2B

3. Derrek Lee 1B

4. Aramis Ramirez 3B

5. Cliff Floyd LF

6. Michael Barrett C

7. Jacque Jones RF

8. Ronny Cede

[rareair]

Don't forget Matt Murton, who will probably be in the everyday lineup. Sounds like Pinella really likes him from what I've read.

 

and felix pie. i hope he is good because i really like that name.

[Lammycat]

Major League Baseball has been at war with it's fans for years. Just another fine example.

 

I'm considering MLB.tv too though. Does anyone know how much that would cost for the whole season? I tried to find info on the website, but for now they're just trying to push their off-season package (who's paying to watch spring training? Seriously), so they aren't advertising the regular rate.

I believe mlb.tv is around $80/season. I've read that John Malone is involved in this thing, too. It's looking like a mega-deal in the works.

 

My computer is down in the basement at home. I'm not spending the season in the basement watching games. Plus, the resolution on the games is fairly lame. Especially on bigger t.v.s.

 

The shitty part is, the more I've thought about this the past week, the more I've inched closer to switching to DirecTV soley to obtain the package. I hate having to cave in, but pondering a season relying solely on espn and Fox for games frightens me.

[MrRain422]

According to this page, for 2006 it was $79.95 for MLB.tv for the full season, and if you bought the "All Access" package that included GameDay Audio (which I'm assuming are audio-only feeds), it was $99.95.

 

They'll probably goose the prices a bit for 2007, but that should give you an idea.

 

Damn. Sure would be nice if they offered some sort of lower price to just give you access to one team. If I end up doing it, I'll probably be watching all sorts of games from around the league, but I'd much rather pay half that and just be able to see the Tigers. Still might do it though.

[rareair]

The shitty part is, the more I've thought about this the past week, the more I've inched closer to switching to DirecTV soley to obtain the package. I hate having to cave in, but pondering a season relying solely on espn and Fox for games frightens me.

 

i have tried to get direct tv before and it will not work because i do not have an "unobstructed view of the southern sky."

 

i have no choice but to pay $100 to watch crappy resolution.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I bet Matt Murton will get more playing time and be more productive than Cliff Floyd.

[darkstar]

I believe mlb.tv is around $80/season. I've read that John Malone is involved in this thing, too. It's looking like a mega-deal in the works.

 

My computer is down in the basement at home. I'm not spending the season in the basement watching games. Plus, the resolution on the games is fairly lame. Especially on bigger t.v.s.

 

The shitty part is, the more I've thought about this the past week, the more I've inched closer to switching to DirecTV soley to obtain the package. I hate having to cave in, but pondering a season relying solely on espn and Fox for games frightens me.

 

 

Amen,

 

Thats all I'll get to see the Sox on this year I guess. I really liked having the package on the digital cable, living here in Nashville it's the only way to get Sox games (other than the national ESPN, FOX broadcasts.) I don't understand this move. I would guess there are way more subscribers to digital cable than Direct TV. Seems like the market for potential customers would be higher for the cable. I guess they think a million people will now spring for the dish. You would think that MLB would make a lot more money by offering it to both satellite and cable subscribers, but in the grand tradition of "fuck the consumer" they opt to make a giganto money grab instead of offering some reasonable solution. Hey that's capitalism though, supply and demand I guess.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Amen,

 

Thats all I'll get to see the Sox on this year I guess. I really liked having the package on the digital cable, living here in Nashville it's the only way to get Sox games (other than the national ESPN, FOX broadcasts.) I don't understand this move. I would guess there are way more subscribers to digital cable than Direct TV. Seems like the market for potential customers would be higher for the cable. I guess they think a million people will now spring for the dish. You would think that MLB would make a lot more money by offering it to both satellite and cable subscribers, but in the grand tradition of "fuck the consumer" they opt to make a giganto money grab instead of offering some reasonable solution. Hey that's capitalism though, supply and demand I guess.

The company that distributes the games to the cable companies didn't offer as much to carry the games as DirectTV did. That's all there is to it.

 

However, you may be right that, long term, this results in a smaller number of enthusiastic baseball addicts and thus baseball could lose money on other fronts.

[rareair]

I bet Matt Murton will get more playing time and be more productive than Cliff Floyd.

 

i agree with that. the cubs hitting was so shitty after lee went down that they had no choice but to get some bench players that can actually hit.

 

i actually started to miss corey patterson at one point last season.

[Lammycat]

I've read figures such as this: that MLB EI has about 3/4 million subscribers and that about 1/2 million of those are DirecTV customers already. Assuming taht 1/2 the remaining customers jump ship to DirecTV, MLB is screwing a pretty small number of fans: 100,000 or so. I'd assume it's financially benficial to them as they are in the process of striking a $700 million deal for 7 years.

 

MLBs other angle is that they still offer access to open-market games through the mlb.tv. So the onus of watching the games (or at least having access to them) falls on the customer and not MLB, as they still are leaving the fan options. I don't agree with the strong-arming tactics as far as offering one monopoly to subscribe from, but it it what it is.

 

I actually haven't looked into the prices for DirecTV. They may actually be cheaper than what I'm paying now. I believe it depends on your market area. Still, the lack of an option ticks me off, as does the fact I'd have to put the ugly dish on the house. Also, the static/loss of programming during storms.

 

End of rant.

[Lammycat]

The company that distributes the games to the cable companies didn't offer as much to carry the games as DirectTV did. That's all there is to it.

MLB distributes the games. They distribute them to the cable/DirecTV companies for a fee. They distribute them to the local markets, like NESN for the Red Sox, too. What this does is give DirecTV exclusivity. I suppose they(DirecTV) could pimp it out to other cable networks, as well, if the deal goes down.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

MLB distributes the games. They distribute them to the cable/DirecTV companies for a fee. They distribute them to the local markets, like NESN for the Red Sox, too. What this does is give DirecTV exclusivity. I suppose they(DirecTV) could pimp it out to other cable networks, as well, if the deal goes down.

The impression I got from the article was that MLB distributes to InDemand, who distributes them to the cable companies.

 

Also, the online package is fucked for a lot of people because MLB considers them to be in-market for five different teams.

[Lammycat]

The impression I got from the article was that MLB distributes to InDemand, who distributes them to the cable companies.

Ah. So your saying InDemand is being passed over. Got it.

 

I guess I can't gripe too much, as I still have the option to purchase from DirecTV (and mlb.tv for that matter). I feel for the folks who cannot get DirecTV for whatever reason.

 

Unless you're a current and happy DirecTV customer and/or in the local market of "your" team, it's a bum deal all around.

[jenbobblehead]

i smell a class action lawsuit. somehow. monopoly? anti-trust?

[MrRain422]

MLB already has a ton of anti-trust exemptions (which is why Congress was somewhat able to stiff arm them regarding steroids -- the threat of losing these exemptions would be catastrophic to Major League Baseball). I'm sure their TV distribution rights are all tied to that.

[cryptique]

Congress occasionally gets testy and threatens to remove those exemptions. I think they've mostly been idle threats, but maybe something like this (combined with a Democratic congress) could prod them into real action.

 

Yeah, I'm just dreaming here. But still.

[rareair]

i guess helton to the red sox makes sense. but if they end putting both lowell and hanson in the package that seems steep to me.

[Lammycat]

i guess helton to the red sox makes sense. but if they end putting both lowell and hanson in the package that seems steep to me.

Helton's numbers away from Coors Field aren't too good the last few years (surprise surprise). Coors is where players go to retire and/or enjoy the salad days of their "careers".