Less than three weeks to go until Pitchers and Catchers!

So it has started even before pitchers & catchers.

http://tinyurl.com/3dk5ep

If the InDemand offer is a status quo offer, then that extra mill a year per team seems like peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I just hope the contract with DirecTV has not been signed and that this idea goes the way of the ads on the bases thing from a few years back.

Something else to consider: what will DirecTV charge for EI once they get the exclusive rights (and after they have shelled out the bucks for the contract)?

The answer is clearly no. I just wish there was some way to protest this.

Contact Senator Arlen Specter, who has been threatening the NFL's anti-trust exemption over their "Sunday Ticket" exclusive package.

http://tinyurl.com/5grzt

Football Outsiders has a column today on the impact of the MLB deal on the NFL's anti-trust situation:

http://tinyurl.com/24y99n

It was the 9th inning, Coney had just retired the first batter, and the next Expos hitter lofted a fly into LF. Ledee raced in and wasn't quite sure (nerves?) how to catch it -- palm up or down. Of course, he made the catch but I think everyone's heart stopped as they watched this almost train-wreck unfold in what seemed like slow motion.

And one other thing - I distinctly remember playing the Yankees in some baseball videogame and the in-game commentator pronouncing his last name "Le-deeeee", which always cracked me up.

As I stated before, watching baseball is not a birth right. Baseball is a business, and programming is the most lucrative product that the sport has to sell. Over 20 years ago, everyone complained about how moving games from free-TV to cable was unfair to the fans and would prevent millions of loyal diehards from watching the product. Well, lo and behold, the game actually exploded in popularity instead. Now, once again, the bleeding hearts are vilifying the greedy owners because they want to maximize their profit (I wonder if Dan Wetzel would ever be disloyal to his readers and take a higher paying job at a fee-based website?). Give me a break.

The bottom line is that if one really wants to watch up to 60 out of town games a week, they can still do so by either switching to DirectTV or tolerating a lower quality Internet feed. After all, it's not as if MLB is limiting access to local market games. Baseball fans with cable all across America will still be able to watch regional broadcasts. Having access to EI is a luxury, so forgive me if I don't shed any tears for the "loyal fans" being impacted.

Finally, as for the argument that MLB is selling out for $1mn per team per year, that completely ignores the other revenue implications, namely MLB.TV subscriptions and future network deals. Also, $1mn isn't exactly spare change, even for a MLB team.

We're reaching the point where it's really gotta be one or the other...

Also, I found another number to call (this one was in NY). I was transferred to a guy who listened to my concerns and told me that they were aware of the problems. Give them a call, it might not help, but at least I gave it a shot.
The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10167
(212) 931-7800

Please remember that not everyone even has the opportunity to switch to DTV, and even some that do report very spotty service. We can't all live in the nice, big house with perfect southern sky exposure that you clearly do.

Best 15 bucks I ever spent.

With the possible exception of that night I spent in Kiev, where 15 American Dollars can bring you a long, long way.

As a good capitalist, please remember that every dollar MLB makes, ultimately comes from fans. It is not too much to expect, and maybe even a good business move, for MLB to pick a provider with the greatest reach and potential audience.

I mean, Ford also had a right to maximaize their profits on the Pinto, but burning a number of their 'whiney' customers to death wasn't really nice (although I guess they had the right).

I do wonder this however. I imagine technology might have computer-to-television feeds vastly improved in the future. If so, MLB.TV might be an obvious choice, and would certainly eat into DirectTV revenues. Thoughts?

Lastly, MLB is not just another business, but more of a monopoly with a special exception. Am I wrong on this? If not, applying the rules of traditional businesses to MLB does not always stand up.

Hmmm ....

"night I spent in Kiev, where 15 American Dollars can bring you a long, long way" ...

that isn't by chance connected to your posting name ... :-)

After all, only 750,000 people subscribe to Extra Innings in the first place. So, while Arlen Specter is making a lot of noise (maybe with a little prodding from Comcast), I don't really see this as being a hot button issue. What's more, lifting baseball's anti-trust exemption wouldn't necessarily impact how MLB distributes its programming very much. It would, however, pose challenges to the Minor Leagues, which is probably a much bigger constituency than EI subscribers.

I can understand why many people want things to be made easier for them, but that doesn't justify criticism of a sound business move.

Oh wait, if you're reading this you already are.

TV is dying. It's not if but when. Order baseball online to watch or listen. If you have Sprint you can stream the games to your cell phone.

If anything this is better than the cable switch because you'll have more choices - not less. Embrace the future.

Seriously, I realize what you are trying to say and that you are trying to be the "Jim Dean" (sorry Jim) of this issue. But with all due respect, this is a bigger deal than you are trying to make it out to be. I wonder if you would feel the same way if the exclusive contract was with Dish Network or some cable company and you were being forced to switch?

Also, since that EI package is a "luxury" and baseball is a "business" I guess you won't mind paying a lot higher price this year since DirecTV has a monoply now. Of course, you could just go with MLB.TV (wonder what will happen to that $80 price now?).

Lastly, if $1M per year is such a big deal to teams, they probably should stop throwing around all these large contracts that we have seen this winter. Hmmm, maybe that's how they can afford those contracts. Thanks to DirecTV now the Royals can go overpay another free agent... Whoopee!

I understand folks resist change, but it's really not a bad thing. And five years from now when you're watching the games on your iPhones, you'll be very happy MLB has been so progressive (and business-oriented) about the .com side. And they'll be very rich.

2. How many new/casual fans want to spend hundreds of dollars for the ability to watch over a thousand games a year?

If you're in the market for this kind of product, they've got you by nuts. It's like a guy that does five eight balls a day complaining to his dealer about the terms of his heroin purchase. Can't get DirecTV? You're going to get pixelated MLB.TV and you're going to love it, junkie.

The "every dollar comes from fans argument" is also somewhat misleading. A large percentage of the "dollars" come from media companies. Media companies then sell the ratings they get to advertisers, who then sell products to you. Indirectly, everyone pays for everything, so what relevance does that argument have?

Furthermore, we are talking about a decision that will only impact the cable portion of 750,000 subscribers (considering that the product has been available on DirectTV much longer, that could be a rather small percentage). Are you really suggesting that baseball should allow the desires of these fans to dictate business decisions? That doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider that all of impacted will still either have access to local games; the option to switch to DirectTV (which for me, at least, is cheaper than Cablevision); or, in the worst case, access to the games via MLB.TV.

You think MLB doesn't understand that fans would rather watch on a 42" screen rather than 17" screen? Really?

They're pushing the technology for live broadcasts more than I've seen anywhere else. For that you'll be thankful some day even as MLB may not get the credit they deserve. The profits they will get.

Otherwise, the distribution channels really don't matter. If you want cell, car, and home access you'll be able to pay for it no matter where you live. That's significant progress in my book.

Seriously though, I was already presented with this situation when my cable provider refused to offer the YES network because the price was too high. While many sobbed and complained, I switched to DirectTV. Sure, it required taking a day off from work and getting used to a new product, but now I am very happy I made the switch. It is a much superior product to cable.

As for the price of EI, yes, I would be willing to pay much more because I LOVE baseball. Some people over spend on cars, movies, music, etc. I overspend on baseball. We aren't talking about life saving meds here. 60 out-of-town games a week is, in fact, a luxury. Other than die hard fans, how many people would even want that much access anyway?

29 Just like people resisted cable in the 1980s, they are now resisting non-cable options. It's funny how things come full circle and yet people still think the sky is going to fall.

Thanks for the info dianagramr and nice job on the blog. I see you are a scrabble fan. I used to love to play scrabble with my grandmother when I was a kid, I could never understand why she would not let me use words like: "dawg", "aint" and "yall". She would say, "the fact that people in the south say those words, does not make them actual words". I loved to visit her, she was always playing some kind of word game or working on a puzzle. I never realized that I was learning things from her, I just thought we were playing a game. I can remember watching the 1981 Serious with her while we worked a crossword puzzle together. Man, I sure do miss her...

...that was the case for me last season, anyway.

And Jim Dean (yeah YOU, the REAL Jim Dean)... I don't think anyone here is 'afraid' of the future technology. But we have just entered the age of Hi-Def, large screen TVs. You simply CAN'T compare the MLB feed to your computer with watching the game on a large screen Hi-Def TV. And while I would imagine that one day you will have a 42" Monitor/TV in the living room, that functions as both computer screen AND TV, I believe that time is still a ways off.

I do have, and have been watching Yankee games with MLB.TV on my computer for 2 years. I'm glad to have it... but I much, much, much prefer watching games that are televised.

Are the any 'tech-heads' that have any info of the 'computer-monitors-will-be-TV' issue. Are there technological barriers to it? Is the very nature of an Internet broadcast limited compared to a cable-TV boradcast?

Just my two cents here.

You make some very sound arguments as to why the MLB-DirecTV exclusivity deal makes a lot of sense for MLB from a business perspective. However, some of your comments - like the one I cut and pasted above - destroy the points you are trying to make.

I imagine that if you were in Bama's shoes, or tommyl's, or Knuckles's, you might be complaining to the high heavens about this too, and that you wouldn't appreciate being told by a fellow Banterer to essentially "quit whining already".

Sticking to your arguments, as you did in 31 and 34, gets your points across a lot better.

Again, just my two cents.

you can maximize the screen to fill your entire monitor. it doesn't look that great, but you can walk away from your computer and see what's going on. (i often use my wireless connection to watch games while BBQing, for instance.)

http://tinyurl.com/3bvb9f

As of September 30, 2006, DIRECTV U.S. had approximately 15.6 million subscribers with average monthly revenue per subscriber, or ARPU, of $72.74. DIRECTV U.S. currently distributes to its subscribers more than 1,500 digital video and audio channels, including about 130 basic entertainment channels, 31 premium movie channels, over 33 regional and specialty sports networks, an aggregate of over 1,100 local channels, approximately 70 Spanish and