Jeff Passan on Abreu and territorial rights/RSN's

[caulfield12]

Bautista's OPS is 1.071 on account of his .446 on-base percentage. The 16 walks that led to that hefty number have been counterbalanced by just eight strikeouts, which, in 40 at-bats, is nothing worth bragging about, per se, but considering it's only the 33rd most among 95 hitters with 50 plate appearances, it's on the cusp of the game's upper-third. Slightly behind him is …

 

9. Jose Abreu in both home runs (one back) and strikeouts (three ahead), though both are numbers the White Sox will take. Abreumania went into full swing this week with his variety of home runs. He'll hook one down the line, pummel one out to right-center, hit it every which way in the ballpark, the latest Cuban whose salary sounded outlandish (six years, $68 million) and may prove an incredible bargain.

 

Pitfalls remain. Scouts said they expect Abreu to hit a temporary wall when pitchers make adjustments to him, though that is a big presumption, one said, "because he doesn't have many big holes." At 6-foot-3, 255 pounds, Abreu lords over the strike zone like a monolith in "2001." He has rendered his supposed hole – inside, inside, inside, the rap went – useless with wrists quick enough to whip his bat around on a pitch close to them.

 

And not only is Abreu the class of an overhauled White Sox team for whom new addition Adam Eaton is playing exemplary leadoff man, too, he has blended in remarkably well among Chicago's clubhouse. Veterans like him. Young players like him. The manager likes him. Management likes him. He has faced none of the complaints …

 

10. Yasiel Puig stomachs on what seems like a daily basis, from missing cutoff men to complaining about injuries to not hustling. The story on Puig has devolved into with-him or against-him camps, which is really too bad, because you can be with him by understanding the social adjustments he continues to make while being against rationalizing such adjustments as the root cause for all of his behavior, which he must understand demands remedies because of who he is and where he is.

 

If he weren't Yasiel Puig, Los Angeles Dodger, $42 million man – if he weren't in a crucible and the subject of immense scorn by a media machine that feeds on itself – the timeline wouldn't be so severe. Except he is all of those things, and the choice to sign with the Dodgers demanded a different set of rules, one similar to playing in New York, unfair though that may be.

 

He went with the team that has an $8 billion TV deal, and being a face of that team has its drawbacks. One of them, actually, was rather unexpected. For as many people as there are lodging misguided complaints about Puig, the number would be even greater if people actually were watching the Dodgers. Huge swaths of fans do not get the team's new channel, SportsNet LA, because Time Warner is trying to recoup its investment by charging exorbitant monthly rates.

 

Considering it's a Dodgers-only channel, DirecTV and others aren't willing to pay that and pass the cost along to their customers. It's the same issue Houston's failed Comcast station ran into and one that calls into question the long-term viability of these local TV contracts, especially when other tech products give users the freedom to choose. The modern consumer likes that. He does not like being forced to buy a bunch of things even though he wants just one, and she does not like being told what she can and cannot see.

 

Baseball is doing all of these things. It's why some people in Vegas can't see Puig, why those in Iowa are robbed of Abreu, why those in Fort McMurray, Alberta, more than 1,000 miles from Seattle, are blacked out from King Felix.

 

This is "the heart of the business." This is "fundamental."

 

This is embarrassing treatment of fans baseball doesn't deserve.

 

 

 

 

Full article by Passan, with a long discussion of territorial rights problems (like Las Vegas, where they can't watch any of the California teams, or Iowa fans watching the Cubs/White Sox)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-mlb-s-bla...-055955588.html

Edited April 15, 2014 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

So I click expecting a piece on Abreu and 2/3 of it is about Yasiel Puig.

[cabiness42]

I feel strongly that, with extremely few exceptions, there should be a limit of two teams claiming any territory.

 

I can see Racine/Kenosha counties in Wisconsin having Cubs/Sox/Brewers

I can see most of Connecticut having Yankees/Mets/Red Sox

I can see some parts of Southern California having Padres/Angels/Dodgers

I can see some parts of Central California having A's/Giants/Angels/Dodgers

 

Outside of those, I can't think of any other place that needs more than two teams. Maybe the folks in Iowa can weigh in on how many fans there are of teams other than the Cubs and Sox.

[Kyyle23]

So I click expecting a piece on Abreu and 2/3 of it is about Yasiel Puig.

 

aaaaaaaaaaand this surprises you why?

[caulfield12]

So I click expecting a piece on Abreu and 2/3 of it is about Yasiel Puig.

 

 

It's also Sox-relevant because of the experiences the Astros and Dodgers are going through already.

 

There's not necessarily a huge pot of gold waiting in 2019 for the White Sox.

[caulfield12]

So I click expecting a piece on Abreu and 2/3 of it is about Yasiel Puig.

 

 

It's also Sox-relevant because of the experiences the Astros and Dodgers are going through already.

 

There's not necessarily a huge pot of gold waiting in 2019 for the White Sox.

 

 

 

http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/...ss-on-lawsuits/

The Astros are short $27 million because of the RSN failure, which is huge for them.

 

 

 

After months of failed negotiations,[12] DirecTV released the following statement: "Unfortunately, we have yet to be able to reach an agreement with the owners of CSN Houston that allows customers to choose whether they want to pay to see the games or not. We are ready and willing to have that discussion any time so we can begin providing this network. Until then, DirecTV customers can still see Astros games on FOX, TBS, MLB Network and especially ESPN or hear the games on Houston’s KTRH 740 AM, XM Radio and other regional radio carriers."[13]

 

In response, CSN Houston placed this message on their website: “We remain committed to working out a deal with DirecTV. That said, this page of DirecTV’s website is very inconsistent with their own practices, as well as other pages on their site in which they call themselves “The Leader in Sports, Bar None.” We do not understand why they are pushing for CSN Houston to be the first and only RSN in the nation to be carried on a premium tier. We think that they should treat Houston fans the same way that they treat fans in other Top-10 markets, such as those in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and Washington DC. Their current position on CSN Houston is also inconsistent with their practices in smaller markets such as San Diego, where they recently reached an agreement to carry a RSN that only features one San Diego-based professional team. CSN Houston features three professional Houston teams. We will continue to work with DirecTV, but feel that Houston fans deserve better than their current position.” [14]

 

CSN Houston is also at a stalemate with Dish Network and the region's other major cable providers AT&T U-verse, Time Warner Cable and Suddenlink Communications.[12][15]

 

Ratings have been competitive based on the total number of households with the channel, but overall have suffered due to the lack of availability in the Houston market. Through 15 games, Rockets games were averaging about a 0.95 Nielsen rating, which equals about 21,050 households. That is down from a 1.45 rating for the first 15 games on Fox Sports Houston, which was available on most providers in its market. CSN Houston President and GM Matt Hutchings had this to say; "I get it that everybody wants the channel. We want them to have it. We just have to find that right deal." [16] The current obstacle however to providing coverage on other providers is that CSN Houston, Rockets, and Astros signed a 10-year-deal with Comcast for exclusivity, with an opt-out date unknown to the public.[17] In total, only about 40% of Houston-area viewers have CSN Houston available to them.[12]

 

source: wikipedia

Edited April 15, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I feel strongly that, with extremely few exceptions, there should be a limit of two teams claiming any territory.

 

I can see Racine/Kenosha counties in Wisconsin having Cubs/Sox/Brewers

I can see most of Connecticut having Yankees/Mets/Red Sox

I can see some parts of Southern California having Padres/Angels/Dodgers

I can see some parts of Central California having A's/Giants/Angels/Dodgers

 

Outside of those, I can't think of any other place that needs more than two teams. Maybe the folks in Iowa can weigh in on how many fans there are of teams other than the Cubs and Sox.

 

 

Honestly, there are probably more Cardinals (eastern/southeastern) and Royals fans (west/southwestern, Omaha always has been Royals' AAA affiliate) than White Sox fans.

 

Cubs, obviously #1.

 

Then you have the Twins, and just a few Brewers' fans.

 

So I would say Cubs, Cardinals, Royals/Sox (tie), Twins then Brewers.

[harfman77]

I would like to thank Passan for giving me a shout out for being blacked out from a bunch of Sox games.

[harfman77]

I feel strongly that, with extremely few exceptions, there should be a limit of two teams claiming any territory.

 

I can see Racine/Kenosha counties in Wisconsin having Cubs/Sox/Brewers

I can see most of Connecticut having Yankees/Mets/Red Sox

I can see some parts of Southern California having Padres/Angels/Dodgers

I can see some parts of Central California having A's/Giants/Angels/Dodgers

 

Outside of those, I can't think of any other place that needs more than two teams. Maybe the folks in Iowa can weigh in on how many fans there are of teams other than the Cubs and Sox.

 

 

The majority of people are Cardinals and Cubs fans here and the rest are split between the Twins, Sox, Brewers, and Royals, probably in that order.

 

I think it should be more of a 100-150 mile circle around the city that it is classified "in market" for each team. There is no reason I should be blacked out from 20% of major league baseball teams when the closest park is a 5 hour drive, it really hurts develop younger fans as the adults can go seek out the games at the local sports pub but the kids don't develop any attachment to the sport.

[southsider2k5]

I feel strongly that, with extremely few exceptions, there should be a limit of two teams claiming any territory.

 

I can see Racine/Kenosha counties in Wisconsin having Cubs/Sox/Brewers

I can see most of Connecticut having Yankees/Mets/Red Sox

I can see some parts of Southern California having Padres/Angels/Dodgers

I can see some parts of Central California having A's/Giants/Angels/Dodgers

 

Outside of those, I can't think of any other place that needs more than two teams. Maybe the folks in Iowa can weigh in on how many fans there are of teams other than the Cubs and Sox.

 

Outside of the actual TV markets, I don't get the blackout rules. How much revenue is MLB losing by not selling all of the extra MLB.tv's it could be selling? In the Chicago market, I get the blackout of people who could get something like CSN-Chi, because you are actually protecting your TV contract. But what are you protecting in Indianapolis or Iowa? It makes no sense.

[southsider2k5]

It's also Sox-relevant because of the experiences the Astros and Dodgers are going through already.

 

There's not necessarily a huge pot of gold waiting in 2019 for the White Sox.

 

It also means you aren't going to see a White Sox only network, or the lure to another City with its own network.

[caulfield12]

Outside of the actual TV markets, I don't get the blackout rules. How much revenue is MLB losing by not selling all of the extra MLB.tv's it could be selling? In the Chicago market, I get the blackout of people who could get something like CSN-Chi, because you are actually protecting your TV contract. But what are you protecting in Indianapolis or Iowa? It makes no sense.

 

 

At the very least, they should allow the games to be shown Monday-Thursday, or possibly Monday-Friday....with the Saturday and Sunday games protected and/or shown on FOX/national baseball contract. Also, the teams would have the right to protect the holidays, such as 4th of July, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Father's Day, Mother's Day, etc.

 

It's not realistic to expect fans in say, the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines or Cedar Rapids/Waterloo to drive 3-4-5-6 hours each way on a weeknight. It's just not.

 

And maybe they could also expand the coverage available during April/May/September when school is in session but be a bit more protective in the summer months. It's not rocket science here.

 

 

[cabiness42]

The majority of people are Cardinals and Cubs fans here and the rest are split between the Twins, Sox, Brewers, and Royals, probably in that order.

 

I think it should be more of a 100-150 mile circle around the city that it is classified "in market" for each team. There is no reason I should be blacked out from 20% of major league baseball teams when the closest park is a 5 hour drive, it really hurts develop younger fans as the adults can go seek out the games at the local sports pub but the kids don't develop any attachment to the sport.

 

Well, I think it needs to go beyond 150 miles unless another team is closer, but nobody should have more than 2 teams classified as local except for a few small areas.

 

I think the real question is which RSNs are getting distribution in Iowa. If local cable/Dish/DirecTV aren't carrying CSN Chicago as part of their main package, then blacking out the Sox and Cubs is stupid. Same with the Cards and Royals and whatever RSN carries them.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, I think it needs to go beyond 150 miles unless another team is closer, but nobody should have more than 2 teams classified as local except for a few small areas.

 

I think the real question is which RSNs are getting distribution in Iowa. If local cable/Dish/DirecTV aren't carrying CSN Chicago as part of their main package, then blacking out the Sox and Cubs is stupid. Same with the Cards and Royals and whatever RSN carries them.

 

Totally agreed.

[harfman77]

Well, I think it needs to go beyond 150 miles unless another team is closer, but nobody should have more than 2 teams classified as local except for a few small areas.

 

I think the real question is which RSNs are getting distribution in Iowa. If local cable/Dish/DirecTV aren't carrying CSN Chicago as part of their main package, then blacking out the Sox and Cubs is stupid. Same with the Cards and Royals and whatever RSN carries them.

 

We do get CSN as part of our base package on DirecTV, the games that are blacked out are games that are either on ESPN or WCIU. One of the local stations has a new agreement with WGN to carry Cubs and Sox games on one of their alternated stations (9.2).

[Texsox]

 

Dallas is an 8 hour drive away and I'm blacked out. Really? Houston takes about 6 hours. I am blacked out there as well. 150 miles to watch a game in most city parks would be a 8 hour committment. that seems about the longest that makes sense to me.

[chw42]

Dallas is an 8 hour drive away and I'm blacked out. Really? Houston takes about 6 hours. I am blacked out there as well. 150 miles to watch a game in most city parks would be a 8 hour committment. that seems about the longest that makes sense to me.

 

Dallas at least makes sense since I get Fox Sports Southwest here in Austin on Cable. But nobody gets CSN Houston here...that's the one that makes absolutely zero sense.

 

Edit: wait 8 hours away...where do you live in Texas?

Edited April 15, 2014 by chw42

[TheChrisSamsa]

I hate blackouts as much as the next guy, but they're not that hard to get past, legitimately and legally, especially if you're just trying to watch at home.

[Heads22]

In Ames, we get Fox Sports Midwest, and Brewers/and Royals games on FSNMW+.

 

I am still blacked out from Sox games. And it blows. They'd get 100$ from me for MLB.tv.

[cabiness42]

In Ames, we get Fox Sports Midwest, and Brewers/and Royals games on FSNMW+.

 

I am still blacked out from Sox games. And it blows. They'd get 100$ from me for MLB.tv.

 

I would think there would be enough Cubs fans in Iowa to generate demand for CSN Chicago, but yes, that's a perfect example of a location that doesn't get CSN Chicago but is still blacked out for Sox/Cubs games on mlb.tv. Indianapolis is another such location.