MLB Network first impressions
It sucks.
Of course this is largely me being irrational based off hearing both John Heynman and Barry Larkin say that if Ken Griffey Jr doesn't retire he should sign with the Mariners because "there wouldn't be as much pressure on him'" and "it would be a great PR move."
Barry Larkin has 0 TV presence. He did admit to phoning in 2004 on the field.
Harold Reynolds is still annoying, they just did a 5 minute segment with he and Michael Cuddyer talking about playing the ball off a wall. Nothing really big but it was weird seeing them both in casual clothes for a super short segment. Their faux baseball field set is kind of cool though.
Their New Year's resolution for the M's was to improve on their losing and to find someone to replace Raul Ibanez. Then said maybe it'll be Beltre since he almost won an MVP in his last contract year.
Al Leiter says we've lost our best Pitcher and best Hitter besides Ichiro. Did say Wakamatsu is a good young manager.
Larkin says we should trade Ichiro to change the culture and mindset of the team. Larkin again says he thinks Seattle would be a great place to have Griffey back. "He'd be an elder statesman, great for the community, would help the young guys."
Al Leiter echoes these sentiments, "Great PR move."
Reynolds, "The Mariners are my team, I'd love to see Griffey retire with them."
If you were hoping for anything better than ESPN, the MLB Network is not it.
0 recs |
38 comments
Comments
Personally I never was excited for the MLB network analysis
The classic games and historical segments was what had me excited.
by edddgar on Jan 2, 2009 11:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!
This is what I was enjoying today
by seattlesundevil on Jan 3, 2009 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see this.
But I can imagine this taking place, sounds a lot like the talking heads on ESPN, well, Harold Reynolds is a former ESPN talking head.
Al Leiter did something similar to Griffey, signing with the Marlins in 2005 as a veteran in the rotation, in hopes he would be a mentor to Beckett, Burnett, and Willis. He tanked and was put on waivers by mid season and claimed by the Yankees, and later failed even more. He retired afterwards.
by Fin on Jan 2, 2009 11:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We lost neither our best pitcher nor our best hitter.
Unless Felix and Ichiro/Beltre are gone without me knowing about it.
by Mariner John on Jan 3, 2009 12:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ibanez was a pretty good hitter
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made he was our best hitter the last few years (ignoring defense/position).
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 3, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not every year...
…since Ichiro had the better wOBA in 2007, but over the last three, sure. Last year, Raul led the team in wOBA, so you would have a reasonable argument that he was the best hitter on the team, even if he wasn’t even close to being the best position player.
by ubelmann on Jan 3, 2009 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Standard mainstream sports media analysis
Little insight and lots of old school, traditional thinking. Moderately articulate men who are well versed in baseball’s conventional wisdom and regurgitate it on cue.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Jan 3, 2009 12:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
All I know is I better get it cuz if I don't I'm getting Broadstripe and fuck Broadstripe.
by acblue on Jan 3, 2009 12:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I kinda figured most people would see this coming.
I mean really, it’s basically just a longer version of what the mlb.com segments bring you. Just with historical games, some games during the season, and I imagine extensive draft coverage.
It was foolish to expect anything more right now.
by Goose on Jan 3, 2009 4:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
It is what it is — a league-owned promotional vehicle that should serve as a complement to the rest of the baseball coverage I seek out. I’m most excited about watching old games. I don’t need MLB Network to tell me who’s good or bad at baseball.
by Teej on Jan 3, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it'll definitely be neat to get to see some of the interviews though
and I hope they use it like the NFL does, for highlight recaps on gamedays, to show games nationally that otherwise wouldn’t be watched, and to show historic games, like Larsen’s perfect game
by seattlebruin on Jan 5, 2009 3:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we need to give it time.
During the season, if we’re watching upteen baseball games and getting some interesting tidbits from the industry, I’d call it worth it.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jan 3, 2009 4:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well they were talking about the Mariners
So that’s a little bit better than ESPN
by Fogel on Jan 3, 2009 7:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
…for posting this. We had to get rid of our cable because I lost my job a month ago, and I was wondering if the network was any good. I’m still curious to see it myself, but it’s good to see someone’s first impression of it, as well, since mlb.com is only going to talk about how great it is…
by section331 on Jan 3, 2009 9:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hope nobody was expecting deep critical analysis from MLB.com
because you’ll never get it. They’re not in the business of expanding people’s knowledge and presenting things in different ways – they’re in the business of selling baseball to the masses. And they do that pretty damn well.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 3, 2009 10:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
from MLB TV rather
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 3, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They'd do a better job of it if their network were available in Canada.
Bastards.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jan 4, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like you had some weird expectations.
I wasn’t expecting anything but the regular fiddle faddle fodder. Why would you? You know the guys who are involved. What’s exciting is the content, the replayed games, the live look-ins – I don’t know who or why anyone would go to TV for analysis anyways when we can get an infinite amount in more detail from more knowledgeable heads right here on the internet.
by weebs on Jan 3, 2009 1:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Y'know, it's not THAT bad on the analysis.
The Derek Lowe conversation they had on Hot Stove was interesting. They were trying to figure out why it is Lowe could ask for 16 million when he’s clearly not a #1 starter. Hell, Mitch Williams even mentioned he was a pitch to contact type pitcher and how those pitchers aren’t as “good” as power (strikeout) pitchers. They were calling him a near #2 pitcher or a good #3 pitcher and certainly not worth 16 million a year. I was somewhat impressed at the candid commentary.
It didn’t last the entire time, but at least someone was calling a spade a spade.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jan 3, 2009 11:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Derek Lowe is really really good
and worth close to $16m a year
by JI on Jan 4, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For 2009 anyway
Marcel projected FIP for Lowe is 3.76—Johan Santana’s projected FIP is just 3.60—and projected IP is 185. With a league average FIP for starters around 4.40, that would put Lowe around 13 runs better than average. If we set replacement level around 5.40—which might even be a bit on the low side—he gets a 20-run replacement-level bonus, making him a 3-3.5-win pitcher next year.
If anything, I think that the knock on him should be his age. I’d pay $16M for him on a one-year deal, but I would be less sure about what I would pay him in years past that. The Mets’ reported $36M/3yr deal is pretty close to paying him market value if you assume he goes 3-2.5-2 over the next three years (which seems roughly about what happened to Greg Maddux around that age.) Though since he spent some years as a reliever, I wonder if decline isn’t as much of a worry as it would be for a typical 36-year-old starter.
by ubelmann on Jan 4, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At the very least, he's worth 3 years / $48 million.
The guy has a clean bill of health, good peripherals, consistently chews up innings, keeps the ball on the ground…
He’s not a power pitcher. His age is secondary.
According to this article however, he’s looking for 4 / $64m.
The guy is sure to decline… not sure I’d be willing to take on that fourth year.
by oc on Jan 4, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's sure to decline...
…then I don’t think he’s worth $48M/3yr. Somewhere between $48M and $36M seems right to me.
I do think that age is a legit concern for a guy who lives off of an 89-mph fastball. If he loses a little velocity there, it could make a big difference.
by ubelmann on Jan 4, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's also worth noting that those projections are assuming he's pitching at Dodger Stadium.
I’d like the Rangers to make a run at him, but it doesn’t seem feasible.
Here’s the thing… if the Yankees can’t get him, the Mets can’t afford him, the Dodgers can’t afford him, and the Red Sox already have a reclamation project with Penny… where in blaze does the damn fool end up?
by oc on Jan 4, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone know when it is going HD?
Assuming it is; the picture quality on standard definition, like JI said, is still very good. And will it air regular season and/or postseason games? Live, I mean, not replays.
Well, I'll appreciate for you to keep my zingers outta your mouth!
by BoSox415 on Jan 4, 2009 5:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I doubt they'll show games live
because all the clubs have their own TV and MLB already has national deals with Fox and ESPN.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 4, 2009 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
shows what I know
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 4, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It already is in HD
at least for me on DirecTV. I have MLB Network HD and MLB Network SD on channel 213.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Jan 5, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record
I didn’t expect in depth coverage, I was just bored happened to flip to MLB Network to see if I get it (considering I had just scaled my DirecTV package back a lot) and since they were discussing the AL West I kept watching.
I’m sure I’ll probably end up flipping to it a lot when I’m too lazy to find anything else to do, since shitty baseball coverage is better than no baseball coverage…
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Jan 5, 2009 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 












