cabiness42

A 1% average increase in viewership over 3-4 weeks pushes the price even higher the next time negotiations come around.

I don't think ratings are bad in September, but I think they would be better in January. Even a 1% difference is a lot of money.

A little bit. They've already moved the season back 1 week due to poor ratings on Labor Day Weekend. Moving it back more would be even better.

Yes, but the NFL makes far more on TV money than ticket money, so while it would suck for the fans who go to games, it would be highly profitable. Also, there are those who would prefer sitting outside for 4 hours in a 38 degree day in January over an 88 degree day in September. A minority, but there are some.

Since sports revenue is driven mostly by TV money these days, here is something the NFL could do that would be radical but would explode their TV money: 1) Start the regular season on the Sunday that falls within the range of September 23-29. [This is for a 16 game season, move a week earlier for a 17 game season.] 2) The 13th week of the regular season will include the Sunday that falls within the range of December 16-22. Each team will get a bye within the range of weeks 4-10. 3) The two weeks after the 13th week are off weeks for all teams. No games. 4) The 14th week of the regular season will include the Sunday that falls within the range of January 6-12. The 17th week of the regular season will include the Sunday that falls within the range of January 27-February 2. 5) Playoff schedule continues as usual following the end of the regular season, with Super Bowl Sunday falling within the range of March 3-9. 6) Eliminate all Thursday games except for Thanksgiving. Add Saturday doubleheaders in Weeks 12-17. Why this helps TV ratings: You move games out of 2-3 weeks in September where ratings suffer because it's still nice weather outside, and 2 weeks in December/January because people are traveling for holidays. You move games into January-February when the weather is too bad to go outside in most parts of the country, plus there aren't many compelling sporting events to compete with.

The problem is, I want to "learn more about baseball" from my analyst. I want my PBP guy to be a professional broadcaster. I have nothing against Hawk. I have something against the Sox for insisting on using people who are best suited for the analyst role in PBP, on both the TV and radio sides.

I don't remember, and now that I think about it, I may have it confused with vesting options in contracts. Those have to be participation based and not performance based.

I guess I just always assumed that he has a driver. The article doesn't really say one way or the other. But no, when I was making that drive I wasn't drinking.

The PTBNL can't be conditional on performance. It can be conditional on number of games or number of plate appearances, but I never saw anything in this deal that indicated that was the case.

I don't know if age affects his driving ability, but when I was 18-25 I did the same drive home from Sox games dozens of times. He's pretty close to a Toll Road Exit so it's a pretty easy drive.

Gillaspie has the 3rd best OPB and 2nd best SLG on the team. There is no excuse for him batting lower than 4th, at least not against a righty starter. I don't care if that means batting Abreu 4th, batting Gillaspie 4th, or batting two lefties consecutively, but there has to be some way to bat him up higher in the order. Oh, and Alexei should never bat 2nd. His slash line screams out #6 hitter.

Lucky for Vanderbilt that the IRS doesn't manage their email system.

First of all, Trout has 82 more PA, and playing more should count for something. Trout leads in OBP, SB and Defensive value. Abreu leads in SLG, but that's not enough to overcome all the other defecits.

As of right now: 1 Trout 2 Abreu 3 Felix 4 Gordon 5 Sale

Well, ND is always at or near the top in Academic Progress rate. No recent major NCAA violations or probation (though one potentially very big case is pending) Percentage of athletic-department revenues subsidized by student fees and state support is zero. It's actually negative, because athletic revenues subsidize student scholarships. Tommy Rees is the only player I can think of arrested in the past few years. So I guess whatever fits into the "ick" factor must be enough to cancel everything else out. Again, consider the source. Also, when you admit that you are using something like "ick" factor, you might as well just say that you're ranking certain programs they way you are because of how much you do or don't like them.

Unless the acquiring team wants the Sox to eat some salary, I don't expect any return for Dunn beyond a reliever who has never gotten past AA because of his walk rate. The kind of guy that even Coop is a longshot to fix. And it would be incredibly silly for some team not to add him given the negligible cost.

I'm not saying Dunn is valuable. He isn't terribly valuable. Sandoval, however, would be less valuable. I'd rather give Andy Wilkins a chance than sign a guy with a .755 OPS.

Right, huge need for a DH bat, which really ought to be somebody who at the very least outhits Dunn this year. With Gillaspie able to play 3B/1B and Semien able to play 2B/3B/LF, the Sox have the luxury of being able to pursue the two best hitters they can get, regardless of position, as long as at least one of the two can play a position other than DH/1B. If the two best hitters they can get aren't better than Dunn, then just bring Dunn back. Gillaspie at 3B and Dunn at DH >> Gillaspie at DH and Sandoval at 3B, at least from an offensive standpoint. Factor in that Sandoval is probably going to cost more than Dunn and it doesn't really make sense. This is what you have to keep in mind if you want to move Gillaspie from 3B to DH: .812 is a fantastic OPS for a 3B. .812 is a decent OPS for a DH. Find somebody who will put up an OPS better than .812. If that guy happens to be a better 3B than Gillaspie, then fine, move Gillaspie to DH, but moving Gillaspie to DH so you can make room for a .755 OPS guy at 3B is counterproductive.

Until I see better OBP from him, I'm playing him on the same patch of dirt he played this year.

You would be in a position to know better, but I've always gotten the sense that the Sox base their offers on what they think each player is worth, as opposed to spending to a set budget. They think that Player A is worth $X and Player B is worth $Y and if they can get those players for those dollars, great, and if not then move on to the next targets. Sometimes you get your targets and spend right up against any maybe a bit beyond the budget number and sometimes your targets all get more than you think they are worth and you start the season under budget. And if that really is how it works then I'm fine with that.

Why are we discussing acquiring infielders? That ranks 7th on the Sox priority list behind bullpen, starting pitching, outfielder, catcher, DH and hot dog vendor. Here is the current 2015 IF depth chart: 1B: Abreu, Gillaspie 2B: Sanchez, Semien SS: Ramirez, Semien 3B: Gillaspie, Semien There is no need there. Unless 1-2 of the aforementioned guys are sent out in a trade for a SP or LF, then there aren't going to be any IF acquisitions. (Also, not meaning to short Semien in any way. He could very well win the 2B job, and even if he doesn't, I expect he would get plenty of starts at 2B/3B.)

Yeah, as others have noted, it's awfully late in the season to be making up 20 points in average.

Not sure about that. Between gambling, dining and entertainment, the mega hotel/casinos are making their biggest bank during the same hours these hockey games are going to be played. Are casinos really going to comp guests with an event ticket that sends them outside of the casino during prime time? I could see a few of the highest-end properties getting suites to entertain their whales, but I don't see the average property comping their average gambler with hockey tickets.

MSNBC and Fox are very biased. CNN is just inaccurate. They all suck, just in different ways.

White Sox fans suck. Royals fans suck. I think we all see the connection here.