Looking forward, though, to Morrissey's book. Hope it isn't as A-Rod heavy as the interview.

From NY Times (hat tip: nomaas.org)

---------------------------

Extra Innings Exclusively on DirecTV

Major League Baseball is close to announcing a deal that will place its Extra Innings package of out-of-market games exclusively on DirecTV, which will also become the only carrier of a long-planned 24-hour baseball channel.

http://tinyurl.com/2uyn9f

---------------------------

Today, nomaas.org posted updated contact info for MLB's Commissioner Offices:

http://www.nomaas.org/

For those with cable and Dish Network, this blows. Not a smart move by MLB. What do you do when you're trying to regain your sports status as the 'national pasttime'? Simple, you make your product way less accessible to the public. Way to go, Selig.

It's not simple. First you have to find someone that's major-league ready (if not already major-league.) Then you have to know if that player is willing/able to play in the Yankee organization, and moreover play in a pressure-cooker like none-other. Seeing the treatment that free-agents who slump from the start have gotten the last several years, I don't blame a player for not calling Cash back or just saying no, I'll stay in Houston or San Diego thank you. Then you also have to know if the player fits the mode of the team that you're building (would you trade for A.J. Pyrzynski or Sandy Alomar, Jr. if they were made available?)

Sure, you can acquire a top-notch prospect and force him into the lineup because of injuries (a la Melky), but know that the minute he slumps or spits the bit, the fans and the press will be all over him like flies on pu-pu platter. There's a much bigger risk in putting a highly-touted prospect in the line of fire in New York than anywhere else, and that's why Wang and Cano were consided surprises. Why put that on them from the beginning?

There are few Jeters in the league than can step in and take that kind of pressure from the get-go and succeed beyond expectations. However we as fans and media have a strong habit of taking that for granted. Cash sucks because he didn't get a catcher, he sucks because he signed Scrabble to play first, he sucks because he loaded up on right-handers and went blind in the process. The season's long, the off-season feels longer. Give it a rest, we still have a couple more months to "straighten it out" and within those months, the components that we're missing can likely surface at the right time and price.

(And somewhere in the distance, Denis Leary says: Relax!!!)

that would be an affront to tournament Scrabble players (such as myself)

4

see this thread

http://tinyurl.com/2vg97f

Sure, the season's long but over the last few seasons I've seen that the weaknesses at the beginning have a way of coming back to hurt in the end (i.e., playoffs), esp. with a manager that doesn't deal well with choices.

2005 - CF = Bernie to Womack to Reese to Bernie to Bubba to a certain dropped ball

2006 - 1B = Cairo to Andy to Guiel to Wilson to Shef to Shef at 1B in the post-season with 9 games under his MLB belt.

Who knows, will this season be:

1B? Again!?

Catcher? Based on their 35 yo starter? With TR Nieves as the backup and nothing on the farm!?

Something else? A major IF injury? With Cairo as the primary backup and nothing else on the farm?

This off-season started well. Then Cashman traded a valued commodity (a league average lefty SP) for the least valued prospects (RHRP). The Yanks had other needs, in the majors and on the farm, and none of the trades addressed them.

Now, I know I wouldn't complaining (as loudly) if Cairo/MCI/TR Nieves were the starters going into Spring AND they had AAA prospects at any of those positions. The scrubs hold the seats warm. Maybe you could argue that Sardinha/the Duncans/Jones could take over at 1B, but the UIF slot is even worse and the catching slot is far, far worse.

The standard retort is: Cashman's not done yet!

To that, all I can do is look at last year and say: He's done until May/June.

And then, they're still back to where they started - AGAIN - like 2005 and 2006. The Unit trade still kills because that was the one chance to truly address a need and they failed. Whether that comes back to haunt them remains to be seen.

As for Cashman and 1B - all the good ones are sewn up and the Yankees have a monster DH that allows them to get average (or less) production from 1B. It's not like Wil Clark in his prime is on the market. All the good 1B are sewn up. It's a junkbin of veterans in the '08 1B market as well. If that Cuban kid the Yanks signed pans out and Cashman isn't going to be #11 on the list of GMs, he'll be #1.

Within the tournament Scrabble community, THIS man is known as "Eyechart"

http://tinyurl.com/37vjyj

I too would have liked to see Cash get a C prospect this offseason, but in terms of available backup catchers, they pretty much all suck.

1B isn't great, but which available free agents would you have gone for? Or what trade would you have liked to see?

Steve Goldman over at Pinstriped Bible/Blog has some good arguments in his archives about these situations. Its good reading.

Sigh. (No offense, Chyll. I've brought it up on more than a few days myself.)

4 Joe Sheehan has an interesting piece up at BP about that today. He concludes that it might tick some people off but it makes MLB more money in the long run because EI is a 'niche product for extreme users'. I think he missed something important - all of us 'displaced' fans who buy EI to watch our favorite team from afar. I think its a travesty - and I'm a DirecTV subscriber!

At 1B, the goal is someone with a few good days ahead of them. There were two prospects in ARI that could have been had. Maybe one in Detroit. And I'm sure others - RH 1B are very common with how many bats exist but who can't play defense. For instance, Toronto did well with the Overbye trade last year.

At C, they should have gone hard at Zaun with an exploding offer AND traded for one of Montero/Mathis/Clement. I have a very hard time believing none of those prospects could be had for Unit for close to straight-up.

I fired off an e-mail to DirecTV regarding their deal. I just received this response.

================================
Dear Diane,

Thank you for writing. I understand your frustration regarding our marketing decision
with the MLB. Please understand our last intension (sic) is to make these games unavailable to you. We are looking for new customers, but I understand you cannot have our service in your building. I am not at liberty to discuss any marketing plans for
DIRECTV, but I hope that you can find a way to enjoy your favorite programming.

Sincerely,

John U6003
DIRECTV Customer Service

====================

Bummer of a last name there John!

Some of this also has to be the influence of Torre. He seems to love Cairo. I remain optimistic though, because Cashman has shown a willingness to make midseason moves and experiment. If Scrabble is as bad as we all expect, I suspect he won't be the starting 1B for long.

Cashman's not making any more moves.

I'm afraid that's all there is to talk about. And other folks keep bringing it up 3.

Like I said 12, as the most vocal of that crowd, I feel the need to respond. I'll hopefully stop feeling that need soon.

The problem is that folks see this glaring contradiction (me very painfully):

How could a GM do so much right and so much wrong? The exact moves and where they get placed, I'll leave up to you, even as there are no ones no one is arguing about (Moose, Cairo).

Some answer with:

1) Wrong? What's wrong?; or

2) Well, he did the best he could do.; or

3) My god, he has a long way to go!

The rest is just discussing how he could have done better.

Why, you got any better ideas?

It amazes me how much MLB moves to eliminate the ability of out of town fans to see their teams play. It used to be the old complaints about the Fox deal, I recall while living in Philadelphia turning to Fox hoping to see the Yanks/Sox game and instead seeing Stargate SG-1 (go MacGyver go!). Now, its this greedy move with DirecTV. It really is shameful.

I wonder if any lawyers can enlighten us in terms of anti-trust laws?

That is why they play the games. And I know I'm looking forward to it - even if a month of TR Nieves will cause me to slam my face repeatedly into a cement wall.

10 No offense meant, that was purely stream of conciousness. It's like what happened to Sparky when he didn't have his Snickers. Yet, if "Scrabble" sticks, I would consider it a happy accident >;)

12 Agree to disagree, JD. There's no telling if the kids we do have will work out, but something tells me that there's nothing available now worth draining your system for, or else he would have already made that move. Cash is not the only savvy GM in the game, yunnow. And I don't see many teams looking to make a trade they know is going to benefit a monster team more than themselves unless they're trying to dump salary. In their opinion, the Yanks will just have to:

A.) wait their turn.
B.) groom their own player (essentially, wait).
C.) go suck an egg.

I happen to like MLB.com but they still have a ways to go.

For those of you getting screwed there are ways to send the .com signal to your TV (I haven't done it so I don't know how well it works resolution wise. Anyone?). Plus you get the benefit of watching it anywhere you have a computer with you*

*blackout restrictions apply.

Already left voice mail over the weekend, as well as e-mail and blogged all over mlb.com.

26

Oh, I totally agree that from a strict $ move, its a tremendous deal. But it does NOTHING to diversify their revenue stream or fan base, and alienates the hard-core fans.

(but what else is new?) sigh

With regard to the com signal to the TV, if the com signal stinks, then the TV signal/reception would be worse, wouldn't it?

{not looking forward to sitting in front of my PC this season)

None of Montero/Mathis/Clement are that and I have a very hard time believing one couldn't have been had for 150-200 innings of league average Unit.

I think if you send it to your TV (unless it's an huge one) then you still be able to see everything but it just won't be very clear - like WPIX in the old days.

I have been a very happy DirectTV customer for years and suggest that those who are upset by the decision simply switch to DirectTV (that's what I did when Cablevision refused to carry YES). Watching out of town baseball games is not an entitlement...if one wants to enjoy the benefit, they need to make the required effort.

Where I disagree with you is in thinking that the Randy Johnson trade is somehow an abysmal failure because of who Cashman didn't get. Sure we have some evidence that Cashman wanted other players that he was denied (and those weren't catchers either). But blasting a GM for not getting a player in a particular trade seems very odd to me; should Cashman be faulted for not getting Verlander in the Sheff deal? Or for not getting Chris Ray in the Wright deal? The second guessing is limitless with this approach. If, instead, a GM is limited to what deal was actually made, then criticism at least have a basis in things that actually occured.

I also don't see why it's such a huge deal that one position (1B) was not hugely improved this offseason. I don't think it was downgraded either, and there are a number of options that may improve production from 1B both on offense (AP) and defense (Douggie). Besides, I think we agree that the free agent pool at 1B was very weak, and overpaying for someone there would be a mistake. That leaves trade, and which player from the Diamondbacks would have absolutely given the Yankees an upgrade at 1B for 2007? Maybe Conor Jackson, but why would the D-Backs trade their top chip for a 43 year old pitcher?

As for Utility Infielder: name me three teams for whom a major infield injury would not result in a major downgrade.

I enjoy your comments, Jim, I just have been unable to see your logic on any of these issues.

required effort?

Ummm ... I guess MLB wasn't satisfied with the $160 I gave them (via Time Warner Cable) last year?

I made a good-faith effort ... and now they've pulled the rug out from under me, and I can't enjoy the games I am willing to pay for (within the constraints of NOT being able to put a dish on my apt. building roof).

And yes ... I will state again that MLB certainly has the "right" to find the most lucrative package for their bottom line, but that it stomps on the fans that supported the EI package on cable.

Note, I live in Manhattan now, so this doesn't directly affect me, but having once been an out of towner on the package (via Comcast) it does infuriate me.

i don't mind mlb.tv. i like being able to see everybody's games, and i can watch them at work or during class. ...not exactly productive, but i'm not a surgeon or anything as important, so i can get away with that. it was my best option.

they don't seem to offer the YES network here for some reason.

(that might be your biggest adjustment if you do end up here, jim dean. but you'll survive.)

Like I've said (three times in this thread alone), I have a very hard time believing that Montero/Mathis/Clement couldn't be had for 150-200 league average innings of Unit. I could voice minor complaints with the other trades, but my problem with that one is they got something they didn't need (relative to other things), which is extremely unpredictable, and thus not very valuable. They could have done better, IMO.

1B - Meh. I wasn't too worked up about it until they got little value in return for Unit. Chad Tracy (plus one or two of those pitchers) would at least have been something they could use with some upside, however small. As I said, I'm sure there are others from West Coast teams - RH 1B prospects are around. Unit could have been turned into a decent one with potential.

UIF - Of course, everyone would be a major downgrade. But it's the difference of rolling down a steep hill (Loretta, Gomez) and falling off a cliff (Cairo). No problem if it's twenty games - much moreso if it's 60. The problem is: Injuries happen. Why not be better prepared?

What about the (literal) millions of people who can't get DirecTV because (a) they don't have a clear view of the southern sky or (b) the building/complex where they live does not allow it? The problem with making EI exclusive to DirecTV is that there are a huge number of people who can't get DirecTV even if they wanted to.

That's one of the reasons the "almighty" NFL is criticized heavily over its "only on DirecTV" package. I have been reading Gregg Easterbrook (aka "Tuesday Morning Quaterback") for at least 5 years now, and he's been complaining about it for at least that long. Because he too can't get DirecTV where he lives.

23 TMQ has been talking about how the NFL might get dragged before Congress because of the DirecTV thing - go to http://tinyurl.com/yk4tug and then go about halfway down the page.

I don't see why MLB couldn't get dragged into Congress over this one too. Congress could threaten to revoke MLB's precious anti-trust exemption (yet again).

Also, I have DirectTV and experience 1 or 2 weather outages each year. The longest I lost my signal for was about 45 minutes. It's not a huge problem.

35 You didn't give MLB anything. MLB had already negotiated a fixed deal with the company that distributed Extra Innings to cable systems. It was to that company and Time Warner that you gave your money. If you want to blame someone, send a letter to your cable operator and to the distributor asking why they were willing to charge you so much, yet not bid higher for the rights.

Finally, how exactly did you show good faith? You paid for a product that you wanted. If you still want it, and are willing to pay the required fees, it is available to you.

It's time for everone to stop whining about being "stomped on" and just make an adult decision.

But I've seen a pattern that they're essentially breaking-in two kids a year (i.e. Proctor, Melky in 06, Cano & Wang in 05). Now these guys aren't Mariano, Jeter, Bernie, Jorge, Pettitte of the 90s yet, but they're building into solid MLB players.

At the outset of each year, they don't target a kid as the heir apparent in any given situation, but just let it develop to see who works out. I would rather that they enter Spring with open spots for 2 kids in the BP and 2 kids on the bench every year instead of retreads like Scrabble/Eyechart or Kelly Stinnett.

That being said, how can you argue for a signing of Loretta or Chris Gomez instead of Cairo? All three are the same player - equally below average. And Loretta has a starting deal, so why go to NY to be a backup? But worse is Chris Gomez...we're talking about CHRIS GOMEZ here! He's go no upside and, in fact, isn't a high quality SS/2B player anymore - he's been below average at SS for 4+ years and for the past two, over 50% of his games are at 1B.

Cairo's not there to step in for 6 weeks if Jeter goes down. They'll bring up a rookie (Almonte in 03) rather than put that veteran UIF in the lineup everyday (E.Wilson in 03).

I agree with the youngster thread, but really can't see advocating for guys of the caliber of Chris Gomez. Cairo ain't that bad - it was only 2 seasons ago when he was 102 OPS+ with 11 steals.

1) Yes, Time Warner could have set ANY price for their customers to purchase the EI package. I know I didn't pay MLB directly. But its a bit of semantics at the margins. :-)
2) The required fees would be for me to move ... (Ummm ... nope). IOW, its not the "cost" as much as the "external constraints".

Next I guess I'll be told to kvetch to my landlord, and to whomever built my building so that it didn't have a southward exposure ...

(sigh ...)

For the record, I had mlb.tv AND the Extra Innings package last year, and happily paid for both, and would have done so again ... even with their infernal Saturday afternoon blackout rules.

44 Unless, of course, an influential Senator like, say, Arlen Specter is himself affected. Read the tinyurl link I put in 42 to TMQ.

And if Congress could grandstand over PEDs, what is to stop them from grandstanding over this one, too?

Check the stats. Gomez has been quietly been putting up above averge numers as a UIF.

And Loretta did last year as well, before he wore down. He also signed to be a UIF - check the media reports.

Best case: Pavano has strong start. Moose or Pettitte gets minor injury in June. Hughes comes up and holds down the fort. Moose/Pettitte returns. Mariners are in striking distance in West. Yanks trade Pavano for Clement. Pavano injures his (insert body part here), and we all laugh.

54 Wow, I don't think I've ever seen an admission of crack use online before. It must be the cyberpeeps I roll with.

Brilliant move Selig. Let's see...the ratings are down for the baseball playoffs, so let's make it harder for fans to watch their favorite out-of-market teams and see if that helps build our brand and increase our ratings... Let me know how that one turns out Bud.

Also, today we learned that williamnyy23 either works for MLB or DirecTV
and
E.A. Blayre III's mother has joined the banter (seriously, Reader11722 are you ever going to post anything other than a link to that book?)

Does anyone have a link to the press release?

How do they expect everyone to switch over by April if they CAN get DirecTV.

The timing seems beyond crazy. Why not make it effective for 2008 and beyond, and give subscribers a reasonable amount of time to switch.

60 Sigh...because they are MLB the empire.

http://tinyurl.com/25rvfx

Essentially, they've made the deal and pending legal details they'll announce it shortly. But maybe if Arlen Specter steps up his game quickly, they can delay the switch for a while. One thing that MLB is deathly afraid of is losing their anti-trust exemption.

2006- MLB gets $70m from InDemand...750,000 subscribers (10% of cable households)

2007-2013- MLB gets $100/m per year from DirecTV...10% of the 15m DTV subscribers would be 150,000, let's assume some people make the switch AND they really market hard to existing Sunday Ticket buyers, but that's probably a MAX of 100k, topping out at 250,000.

You're basically looking at a net loss of over 400,000 subscribers, theoretically your most die hard customers.

I know it's all a way to drive people to mlb.tv, but it seems to be an awfully huge FU to potentially half a million people.

What happens in 2014, when some rich hermit offers to pay MLB $125M per year for the package, then makes it available to no one? Does Bud and Co. take the money and run? I bet they would, without a second though.

http://tinyurl.com/2a3k58

(For those not aware, the MLBlogosphere blog is sort of the "hub" for blogging on mlb.com, and is maintained by one of the top editors at mlb.com)
============================

MLB.TV testimonials

For an article on the ever-expanding MLB.TV generation, I am interested in hearing here from anyone who was an MLB.TV subscriber last season and might be willing to be quoted in an upcoming MLB.com article. I know there are plenty here around the MLBlogosphere, and I am looking for testimonials on why it is so cool to see live MLB games this way. The more specific examples the better, including Mosaic experience (six games at once). Feel free to comment here or email me your thoughts. MLB.TV has set the bar in live Internet programming this decade and it's about to be even cooler with some twists.

=========================

I'm trying to tactfully respond to him, without being too snarky about WHY they want testimonials.

"...and it's about to be even cooler with some twists."

a.) knife in the back?
b.) in the wind?
c.) poor ol' Chubby Checker?
d.) a lil' lemon, a lil' lime?
e.) Hello, Sailor!
f.) Bud Selig is really Alfred Hitchcock?
g.) Scott Boras is really Mel Gibson?
h.) Jim Dean is really Rob Gee?
i.) Hip-Hop is really dead?

I could go on all night, but we get the point...

But Knuckles, why in the world would George W. Bush wait that long?

"Too much ado, having seen your comment posting the article here and on other MLBlogs like Matthew Leach's. The article's author has no clue what MLB.TV's picture quality will be this season and is writing about history. the writer furthermore has no clue about upward trends of broadband penetration, sounding very old-school. People are in for some surprises, as .tv has led the way in sports leagues this decade and will push the envelope even further shortly.

==========================

Sigh .... and he entirely neglects the point that people LIKED watching games on cable, rather than their PC.

I doubt that it will be identical to watching a cable feed, but if they continue to innovate in that direction, it very well could be in three - five years. Between now and then will be like the transition between old TV antennas to cable to DVD quality. Instead of the old static when you had to adjust the antenna, now you just get blurry spots. The innovation lies in getting rid of those and making it look more and more realistic.

Once MLB proves the concept, and makes a bundle doing so, don't be surprised when they show the NFL and NBA how it's done and rake in further profits accordingly.

But I'll give it a shot, since it seems so ridiculous to me that someone would be advocating that Cash should have signed the guy.

2006: 6 games at SS, 15 at 2B, 5 at 3b, 27 at 1B. That's not a UIF, that's a backup 1st baseman. He was terrible at 1b and 2b defensively and his SS and 3B games were so low it's hard to say if he was even adequate. His offensive production was actually good as far as OPS+ goes, but are 2 HRs and 7 doubles that important?

2005: 18 g at 2b, 17 g at 3b, 10 g at SS, poor defense at all three spots again. 42 games at 1B out of 83 games in the field. That's closer to being a UIF, but the fact he played over 1/2 his games at 1B is a clue that he's not good at those other positions anymore (he once was a good SS in his early 20s).

Career: OPS+ has only been above 90 in 4 of 14 years, and is a career 82 at the age of 36 in 2007.

Cairo: OPS+ career is 76, not much worse than Gomez', but has 113 steals and an above league average Range Factor and F% at 2B, good F% at SS for his career.

Gomez signed for $850,000 (with no indication that he'd even WANT to play in NY), while Cairo signed for $750,000.

About Loretta, not only is he the same caliber of player as Cairo & Gomez, but according to media reports: "The agreed-to deal is for one year at $2.5 million, but could be worth as much as $3.5 million with incentives, said Loretta's agent, Bob Garber. While the Rangers offered more money, Houston was a better opportunity. Craig Biggio has long been entrenched as the starting second baseman for the Astros. But Garber said Loretta, who has also played first, third and shortstop during his career, will play "all over the infield" for Houston." Sounds more like a regular infielder than a UIF.

I'm not saying either Gomez or Loretta is a bad player and I'm not saying Cairo is good, just that why would Cashman bother? Maybe Cairo is a good guy in the clubhouse and is fine at the near veteran minimum salary (ala Luis Sojo of the 90s). He's also quite a few years younger than both of those other guys and has more speed.

63 Not only does exclusivity guarantee more money per year and drive additional revenue to MLB.TV, but it can also be beneficial by removing some of the glut in the market place. Currently, you can watch baseball pretty much any hour of any day. Is it any wonder why the game's network ratings are plummeting? By making supply more scarce, network demand could very well go up, leading to a better FOX payday down the road.

Also, as mentioned, most EI subscribers are probably diehards anyway. Therefore, it probably isn't very instrumental in developing new fans (new fans are likely created by an attachment to a local team anyway). The only people who are really losing out are die hard, out of town fans who can't afford either DirectTV or MLB.TV. Unfortunately, a business can't make its decisions with such a narrow segment of its customer base in mind.

My Grad School economics professor would disagree with all of that ...

If the objective is to generate interest in the product, then you SATURATE EVERY AVAILABLE OUTLET for showing your product .... you don't RESTRICT its AVAILABILITY.

Yes ... in this way you aren't getting a "premium" price from a vendor for the "exclusive" rights, but you ARE maximizing the potential that somehow ... someway ... your product CAN BE SEEN.

The more avenues you have into someone's home ... the better chance they'll stick around for and tune into the playoffs when the Series are only shown on one or two stations.

Also, keep in mind that MLB sells rights fees and doesn't (yet) earn direct revenue from game broadcasts (i.e., advertising). As a result, it doesn't matter how many people have access to your product…that is a concern for the rights purchasing distributor. If DirectTV is willing to pay more money than cable, even thought it has fewer customers, that's their problem. The only drawback would be if limiting distribution eventually caused baseball's fan base to decline, impacting future revenue potential. Assuming the EI typical consumer is already a die-hard fan, I don't see that as a likely possibility.

Currently, there is so much baseball on TV, that there is no incentive to watch national broadcasts. Why FOX even does a game of the week is beyond me. The DirectTV deal is a no-brainer for MLB. Not only does it receive a higher rights fee, but it also constrains supply, making other distribution avenues more lucrative as well.