Has anyone purchased the DirecTV MLB "Extra Innings" package?

What do you think of it?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Has anyone purchased the DirecTV MLB "Extra Innings" package?

What do you think of it?

Ike had this same question (over on the SKWM board). Here was my response:

"I have just recently been looking into this. Just last night we dumped Dish Network and went back to cable. The main reasons being (1) HD consideratons and (2) Dish Network does not offer MLB Extra Innings. And damn it, I want to watch the White Sox, and watch them in HD. Anyhow, our cable provider's Extra Innings package promises 35 out of market games per week - with no games on Sunday and Wednesday nights due to ESPN exclusive rights, same for Saturday afternoons when Fox is airing baseball. And, no Brewers games period. The pricing and broadcast schedule have not yet been posted.

I think the pricing and broadcast schedule vary from market to market.

For me, the decision will ultimately come down to price per White Sox game.

Anyone else have any input?"


Anyone else here have any input?

A bump seems appropriate.

I was talking with the old man today. He floated the argument that A-Rod is better than Jeter. *But* that Jeter's had the better career. While this argument seems ass-backward to me, it's intriguing and compelling me. What say you EA people?

Jeter's not got the power, but he's got those "intangibles." By that, I mean he always seems to do the right thing, on and off the field. He's got rings, numbers in the clutch--very good numbers in the clutch, if you buy into clutch hitting--and he says the right things in a media market that'll make mountains out of not-even-mole-hills. A-Rod's got the power numbers that may put him next to Ruth and Aaron, but shit, it seems he can't win.

I'm not inclined to buy that he it's the NY market that's killing him. Though, he did well enough on a decent Marniners team, and he was exceptional on a promising Rangers team. So, maybe a change would be in order? I have little doubt it'd benefit the Yankees.

Let's make sense of this guy's career!

steve wrote:

braudimusprime wrote:There's almost no objective reporting on Sox-Yankees issues anymore, and from what I can tell the two teams are even. I can't tell if i'm excited for the coming season, or dreading it as a long slow march back to the suicidal feeling I had at the end of last year's ALCS.

I hate the Yankees and have a grudging appreciation of the Red Sox, but I'd be a fool to make any bet against the Yankees this year. The Red Sox can compete with them, but they are weaker at almost every position, and unless there's an acid spill or a half-dozen career-defining meltdowns, they'll kill the Pilgrims.

Steve, who is your favorite baseball team?

Mine are the Cardinals/Tigers.

Cardinals are because of absolute family loyalty. The Tigers are because I have to root for the home team.

Whatever you say, please don't say the Mets are your favorite team. Cause that would be too soul-damaging.

The New York papers today were practically pinning the whole thing on A-Rod, and not just the generally shrill tabloids, but the New York Times as well. He had a bad series. He had a sub-par season by his standards. But before the Yankees fire their manager and get rid of last year's MVP, someone should remind them of the obvious: they lost because of starting pitching. The teams that win in the playoffs have superior starting pitching. It's why the A's will probably win the World Series. It's why the Astros would have gone to the World Series if they had slipped into the playoffs. It's why the Mets will lose sooner or later. If the Yankees want to get rid of A-Rod to use his salary for starting pitching, then that's one thing. But A-Rod going 1-for-whatever and having a throwing error is not why the Tigers won.

dgrace wrote:The teams that win in the playoffs have superior starting pitching. It's why the A's will probably win the World Series. It's why the Astros would have gone to the World Series if they had slipped into the playoffs. It's why the Mets will lose sooner or later. If the Yankees want to get rid of A-Rod to use his salary for starting pitching, then that's one thing. But A-Rod going 1-for-whatever and having a throwing error is not why the Tigers won.

You are correct in your last sentence, without a doubt. The Yankees didn't pitch well enough to win. A-Rod is not the reason why they lost.

Pitching is the key to playoff success, but I don't think it has to be starting pitching. I don't see any reason why Willie Randolph can't continue to win playoff games the way he is now- getting 4 innings from a starter and then using 10 relievers to go the rest of the way. It could work.

The Atlanta Braves won eight million division championships in a row with superior starting pitching. But, 1995 notwithstanding, they never had a lot of playoff success.

One thing we have seen a lot in recent baseball post-seasons has been the emergence of a young and inexperienced, but dominant relief pitcher. Think K-Rod in '02 and Bobby Jenks last year. I think it's Zumaya this year.

Crap. A-Rod epitomizes what is wrong with the Yankees, who have now reverted to their 1980s incarnation with lots of superstars and zero championships to show for it. The teams that won in 1996 and in 1998-2000 were short on real stars, but long on home-grown talent. Trade the cow.

Let's go Mets.

tipcat wrote:The teams that won in 1996 and in 1998-2000 were short on real stars, but long on home-grown talent.

Andy Pettitte, OK. Other than that, there isn't a susbstantial difference between the number of free agent signings on the 96-00 teams and 2006.

If the Yanks had a circa 98 Andy Pettitte in the playoff rotation, would their chances have been better? Of course, so your point isn't invalid.

tipcat wrote:Crap. A-Rod epitomizes what is wrong with the Yankees, who have now reverted to their 1980s incarnation with lots of superstars and zero championships to show for it. The teams that won in 1996 and in 1998-2000 were short on real stars, but long on home-grown talent. Trade the cow.

Let's go Mets.

A-Rod didn't make everybody else on the Yankees unable to hit in the playoffs. A-Rod didn't turn the pitchers into a bunch of chumps that served up batting practice to the Tigers.

The guy is the best player in the American League. If the Yankees want to get rid of him, I say go for it. That'll make them lousier faster, which suits me fine.

tipcat wrote:Crap. A-Rod epitomizes what is wrong with the Yankees, who have now reverted to their 1980s incarnation with lots of superstars and zero championships to show for it. The teams that won in 1996 and in 1998-2000 were short on real stars, but long on home-grown talent. Trade the cow.

Let's go Mets.

I have no idea what you mean when you say the Yankees' dynasty of the late 1990's was short on real stars.

The 1996 team had two future Hall of Famers (Jeter and Rivera) at the beginnings of their careers, a borderline Hall of Famer (Williams) in his prime, two Hall of Fame/Hall of Fame Caliber guys at the end of their careers (Boggs and Tim Raines), and a few All-Stars in their prime (David Cone, Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez, Jimmy Key). They even had a couple of ex-All-Stars who were still moderately productive (Ruben Sierra, Dwight Gooden, Darryl Strawberry).

The 1998-2000 team lost Boggs and Sierra, but added ex-All-Stars Chili Davis, Chuck Knoblauch, and David Wells as well as a borderline Hall of Famer (Posada) and possibly the greatest pictcher who ever lived (Roger Clemens).

It those teams weren't chock full o' stars, I don't know what were