Jump to content

The Hot Stove League


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Yep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :ohwell

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...