Discussion

BostonRoss 2017-07-15 15:32:51 UTC #241

I can watch all th Phillies games on line, except when playing the Red Sox. Come on up! The weather's great (for now...).

julio 2017-07-15 16:14:22 UTC #242

This looks like it may be correct.

But the bigger issue with fubo is that it's still the same overall model as cable. The "basic" package (fubo Premier) is $50/month (after the introductory discount), and it's a bundle of 69 channels - of which I'm interested in maybe a half-dozen. To access that half-dozen, I'm asked to subsidize 60 or more channels that, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing go out of business. Something like 20% of those channels are FOX properties, which I have no intention of underwriting. Unlike many, I simply can't justify subsidizing these things simply because I "want" to watch something else - even if $50/month were a reasonable charge for streaming access to Phillies games. (I'm not sure it is; $50/month would basically pay for two AA games a month for my wife and I - and I think we'd get more enjoyment out of that... and we can do that without subsidizing all the crap on TV.)

zambonir 2017-07-15 20:44:46 UTC #243

I'm not sure you're the typical consumer julio! True a la carte will arrive eventually I think. .

I watch a lot more non-sports than you do clearly, and while we apparently share some political views, I not boycotting FX (or the World Series on Fox). And I'm not sure I love NBC/Comcast much more really, in terms of the big-picture view of corporate media. But I'm not gonna stop watching the Phillies or rooting for the Flyers anymore than I'm gonna give up Fargo.

Anyway, seriously off-topic! I know we've had a satellite/cable thread in the past. What's astonishing to me is that, even after that one FCC ruling, Comcast has still successfully kept Philly off of the satellite services. I believe their position has simply switched from. "our loophole means we don't even have to offer it" to "they won't meet our carriage price" (which has also always been the case in Portland).

andyb 2017-07-15 20:54:11 UTC #244

I think we are doomed to pay $40-$50 for awhile on all these streaming packages. The economics of a la carte would not make it much less. ESPN alone would be $15+.

BTW I think the Hulu streaming service has CSN in Philly. They have the CSN Mid-Atlantic but not MASN for me.

zambonir 2017-07-15 21:30:26 UTC #245

Yeah at this point any true cord-cutting service can theoretically offer the local sports network, it just depends whether or not they've made a deal. Comcast/NBC is a partner in Hulu so that makes sense. The bundling principle is not going to go away for, most likely, the length of Comcast's deal with the Phillies. They control those local rights so they will continue to use it to drive customers to their cable, to their streaming partners, to their Internet service. Unless or until offering it completely a la carte becomes an essential replacement source of revenue.

Until they take away my introductory rate I am pretty happy with my streaming package compared to what I was paying Comcast. But I also legitimately use or want to have well over 40 channels (even if it's something like CNBC that I will only watch when they carry a hockey playoff game) so that math will still work pretty well for me even if my rate jumps from $35 to $60. There is also a package available for a smaller base rate of $35 but it doesn't include MLB or Big 10, NHL, MLB, ESPNU, and NBCSN, all of which I use as a college football and hockey fan. And I had to pay Comcast extra for those too.

EDmuch 2017-07-15 21:56:19 UTC #246

Could we get back to trades and put this tech discussion in a separate thread? Concerning trades, it looks like Brand Hand is the "big fish" among sought after relievers. Sonny Grey is the main target among starters. Phillie guys have not even been mentioned today.

julio 2017-07-15 22:33:04 UTC #247

Sure. All that requires is that people post on-topic.

Arguably a good thing. The absence of rumors need not imply the absence of trade discussions, so much as the absence of loose lips among Phillies front-office types.

zambonir 2017-07-15 22:44:35 UTC #248

Well, it was on-topic when the discussion was whether to trade for Stanton and what the payroll situation might be, and why. Once the thread drift starts, would you prefer one of us start a new thread and then ask the mods to move the other related posts after the fact?

But yes, also, not much to talk about it seems. Or if there is, sure, start talking!

Austinfan 2017-07-15 22:48:20 UTC #249

The big deals get the media attention, but often block smaller trades, teams will check out the cost of the best RPs on the market before settling for Neshek, same with Hellickson. Nava is an afterthought, So it may require a few big names to get dealt before suitors starting ringing Klentak.

julio 2017-07-15 23:29:34 UTC #250

It's problematic to move a bunch of posts - it messes with post timing and such. One thing that's harder here than in PHPBB. Doesn't begin to offset the benefits, IMHO, but nothing's perfect.

On-topic, it does seem that the current front office is much better at managing information leakage than its predecessors. Until a deal gets to the point of contacting players and/or their agents (if contract issues require that), there's really no reason a proposed deal should leak. So we get rumors, often based on speculation, about players who are obvious trade candidates (e.g., Tommy Joseph); but if they're pursuing less obvious things, we might well get no advance inkling.

zambonir 2017-07-16 04:46:37 UTC #251

bkox 2017-07-16 18:21:17 UTC #252

andyb 2017-07-16 18:28:14 UTC #253

Jesus Luzardo was the guy I wanted them to target for Neshek with the Nats.

Probably a good deal for them as they needed a couple of relievers and ideally ones with some closing experience. Treinen is a good relocation candidate who throws really hard. The other prospect was also top 10 for them (would have been in the 11-15 range for us most likely).

Madson has rebounded after a down year to pretty much what he was in his good year in KC. Good for him that he gets another playoff shot.

zambonir 2017-07-16 21:10:10 UTC #254

Well, the games begin. Madson was always more attractive than Neshek IMO, great season, proven closer, signed past this year. And certainly the Phillies couldn't match Doolittle in any way.

This is the trick with trading Neshek sooner rather than later, do you just take a reasonable and perhaps not that impressive offer for a seventh-inning reliever, never mind how good his numbers are, or do you wait for a team (or better yet, teams) that strike out on a closer or set-up man to hopefully bid up? Higher reward, higher risk of being stuck when the music stops.

bkeich 2017-07-16 23:44:04 UTC #255

I think you hope for a #150 or so prospect, but you take the first offer for some teams top 8 prospect. Have to remember that we also have to find deals for Hellickson, Nava and hopefully Kendrick also. If we can combine these guys into a prospect that is better, but if any of them are on the team on August 1 then it would have been better to trade that player for a bag of balls, so you have to take what you can get. It is not going to be a sellers market.

Austinfan 2017-07-16 23:50:59 UTC #256

You go for the higher reward for Neshek, you go for anything decent for the others.
Reason is that Phlliles have plenty of guys who'd be in the top 30 for most teams, up to maybe 50 or so, depth is our strength.
So you want to go for quality if you can get it.
However, Nava, Kendrick, and Hellickson aren't going to get that much, though Hellickson is pitching better the last few games, he's had a long bad stretch until July.

andyb 2017-07-17 00:03:37 UTC #257

Worried that Klentak is hesitating again like he did last year. The Nats were one of the 3 or 4 teams that had interest in Neshek. That is likely gone. He may need to move quickly before another suitor or two disappears. The Nats did acquire better pitchers in the A's deal, but they also acquired some salary. Madson is owed about $10 million more through next year and Doolittle close to $6.5 million though some of that is buyouts for future options that could be reasonable.

The Nats are pretty cash constrained though so getting Neshek for no salary would have been valuable to them.

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-07-17 12:02:12 UTC #258

"One of the 3 or 4 teams interested in Neshek?"
I'm sure every team in the playoff hunt is interested in Neshek(including Washington). They'd be foolish not to be.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-17 12:55:23 UTC #259

Are we sure he hesitated or was it the offers weren't very good?

allentown 2017-07-17 13:17:27 UTC #260

As you well know, we can never be SURE of much of anything, since it happens behind closed doors. One can either choose not to comment in the absence of certainty or one can make logical inferences and comment upon them. You appear determined to give infinite slack to Klentak. I don't regard AndyB's inference as at all unreasonable, and likely correct. One can always wait for a better offer that doesn't come, one can always one to get a little more of the owner's money worth out of a player prior to a deadline trade, one can prefer to wait until the last split second to make sure that a better offer doesn't come in at the last second or that the guy doesn't give the team an extra win, but in doing so a GM runs the risk of the deal before him vanishing, because the team that wants help wants to be SURE it gets help and won't wait forever until the dithering GM finally pulls the trigger. As the clock counts down to the trade deadline and the ditherer waits and hopes that a better offer arrives, the GM with whom he had a deal looks elsewhere to satisfy his team's immediate need, seeing the approaching deadline with alarm -- if Klentak continues to dither, the other GM is doomed, if Klentak actually receives that better offer, the other GM is equally doomed. He can't wait forever.