thebruce44

I am a little concerned my internet wont be fast enough to handle the HD content from MLB.tv. I use my 4g wireless usb drive as my home internet connection. Its about as fast as DSL, does anyone with DSL have any problems?

Excellent point. I think some people forget how often prospects flame out, especially pitchers. At the very least for even elite pitchers, it takes a couple of years before they can be counted on to help you in the playoffs. Here is an interesting link talking about prospects busting: Even more amazing is that you get an middle of the rotation pitcher or better out of a top 10 prospect only 8% of the time. I wont pretend to understand the study completely, but its an interesting read none the less, especially when considering trading our best player for pitching.

Agreed. Winning and playoff chases sell tickets, not individual stars. Besides, JJ was probably as popular or more popular than Prince last year outside of the hardcore fans. I am sure those girls people will still show up this season.

And that cultivated a great relationship.

http://www.baseballprospe...able/index.php?cid=68783 He was also 14th in Pitcher Abuse Points. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this metric could explain it in more depth. OT, I would not want to be a young pitcher for the Tigers.

You don't think it could help his defense that has been declining each of the last two year? He stands some 300 feet from home plate and seemingly takes terrible breaks on balls. Even if his hitting stays the same, I would be happy if he can play at least average defense.

You skipped 2008 in there when he pitched 40 innings. That kind of jump back up is pretty unorthodox. Also, I think it was fairly obvious that Yo was gassed in the second half last year which would seem to indicate that the year off did negatively impact his built up stamina. Sure he had 188 innings in 2007, but the layoff in 2008 sure had an effect from observation and a statistical analysis. I like the wait and see approach at this point, and would be ecstatic if Yo threw right around 200 IP this year.

good idea, i'll try, stay tuned Search around on the internet. There are a couple of free ways to do it, but doesn't sound like a very viable option really. I plan to just hook my netbook right up to my plasma and watch it that way.

I don't have an answer for you but just wanted to say that sounds awful. I drained it once with a red hot paperclip per webmd. Ugg...Did you do that to yourself?

They looked damn good too even with Butler and Lazer being off and in foul trouble. Really encouraging stuff from Fulce and the always solid DJO.

Sorry, but I feel like you are really not getting it here. Your point is that ESPN likes getting a lot of viewers because thats how they make money? I don't think that could be more obvious. The debate I thought we were having was if ESPN bashing was justified and weather or not their programing has changed for the worse causing viewers to leave now that there are other options. I think most of the posters in this thread agree that this is the case and will continue to bash ESPN. I seriously doubt you are going to get anyone to debate with you if ESPN likes viewers and money or not.

Good content. I am amazed that they don't at least spell check their blog posts though.

I suppose he was good in My Own Private Idaho, but that movie just creeped me out too much when I had to watch it for a film class.

Mostly agree with your posts guys. One thing I really took away from this movie that hasn't been mentioned is the sheer creativity that was put into the planet and ecosystem. The lighting, the reaction of the plants, the way they could all connect, and of course the floating islands. Obviously the Navi were a knock off of the Masai, but aside from that the amount of imagination that went into the creatures and plants was awe inspiring.

And there is another perfect example of what I am talking about. Someone who used to enjoy SportsCenter/ESPN before it got Disneyed (Note: I actually love most Disney movies and don't hold anything against the company). I guess I just don't see why its so hard to understand when people want to hold ESPN up to the higher standards they once set for themselves.

You make good points, but I don't think anyone here was even discussing it in terms of a best picture. I was simply saying that for what it is (a blockbuster action movie) it does really well. Besides Titanic (which is my least favorite Cameron movie) Cameron hasn't really done anything to make me expect good dialogue and acting. The plot for the two Terminator movies was pretty good, but beyond that what were people expecting besides great special effects, awesome action sequences, great imagination, and lots of explosions. Its not like the plot in True Lies, Aliens, or Titanic were anything original. And Cameron's past serious dialogue? "I came back for you Sarah." "On your feet soldier." When its satire it works thanks to Tom Arnold in True Lies. Robert, you know a lot more about movies than I do. Who in the past was much better than the cast in this movie? I like his usuals like Michael Biehn and Bill Paxton, but don't consider them great actors (and Paxton is seriously annoying an Aliens). Ed Harris was pretty solid in The Abyss and Leo and Winslett in Titanic of course. But other than that he is working with Arnold as a robot (theres a stretch), Tom Arnold, his ex-wife Hamilton, Weaver over and over again, and of course Paul Reiser. I guess I thought Avatar was very fulfilling of my high expectations in the key Cameron aspects. The stuff I didn't expect him to do well in he lived down to expectations. But is the movie fun? Is it enjoyable to watch? Just like every other film he has made outside of the first 2 hours of Titanic hell yea it is.

And the Last Samarui, The New World, hell even to a lesser extent Point Break and Fast and the Furious. I too don't get why people put down the plot of the movie just because it is somewhat familiar. Since Star Wars was already brought up, its not like anything about Lucas' adventure movies isn't following standardized themes. Its been done for years in Hollywood to varying degrees of success.

I guess ESPN does have a channel like ESPNEWS if that is what you are looking for. 1 - I don't get that channel. 2 - The people I know who do get it, its not in HD. Again, I just ask how does ESPN compare to the competition in terms of viewers? I'd guess it dominates and that is why it works the way it does. I think judging based on number of viewers is a terrible way to estimate the quality of ESPNs broadcasting, which is really what we are talking about here. You seem to think ESPN has all the viewers they have because of their style of broadcasting and because they cater to the larger markets. I think they have all the viewers they have because they are ESPN and have been around forever. They are where the average sports fan goes for sports coverage and highlights because they don't know any better. Unlike you, I don't think this is at all an excuse for them to can get away with hour long commercials and crap reporting. Maybe we have to just agree to disagree, but you are going to have to live with ESPN bashing on any messageboard like this and I think its understandable to expect something better from them.

how would you realistically fix ESPN? For Sportscenter I would cut out some of the fluff stories. I know they are going to have some, but they don't need to be nearly as long. There really isn't much to fixing it to be honest, just go back to what it was 10-15 years ago. News, highlights, a brief synopsis of the Sunday Conversation on Mondays, and end with Did You Know. That was good stuff. If you want to have interviews and such get away from the structure and product placement of The Coors Light or Bud Light 6 Pack of questions. Personally I don't think Sportscenter is really the time to be interviewing players, just stick to the news, highlights, and quotes from other interviews. Finally, never, never, never should an actor be interviewed. Do they think we don't realize Adam Sandler is in an upcoming movie owned by Disney? Just because the movie is sort of about football and has Michael Irving in it does not mean I want to watch a 10 minute commercial for it instead of highlights. For the individual sports...for Football I think they have gone in the wrong direction in terms of announcers. I don't expect Berman to get let go or any of the other guys, but not much you can expect there. Judging by Fox's pregame show as well, the idiotic banter must draw in viewers. I am content to just listen to Jaws or Gruden talk about xs and os, but I fully admit that this probably doesn't sell. I don't really think much will change there or needs to change there. For baseball, Steve Phillips' infidelity was actually fantastic for their network. Now if they can just get Joe Morgan to slip up with some interns we will be in business. These guys are lighting rods for criticism from knowledgeable fans. I recognize that it is going to be difficult to hire away someone who is very good as a GM or coach because in that case they will probably have a better offer from an MLB team, but there has to be something. Get a stathead sitting at the table with a retired catcher and a junk ball releaver who was was around the league for 20 years and let them talk. Finally, devote time to every team. In this day and age of fantasy baseball and increased access to info on the internet everyone wants to know everything. Baseball is going to keep becoming more like the NFL in that small market and large markets are going to matter less and less. Years ago all you could watch was the occasional Yankees game and of course the Cubs and Braves if you had cable. Now you can sign up for MLB.tv or Extra Innings. Fox shows a game each week. ESPN shows a ton of games. Sure the national stuff is still geared towards the larger markets, but if you want to watch Zach Greinkie's next start you can. It isn't difficult for ESPN. Just look at what MLB network is doing and do that. You will reach more people because you have been around longer and have more lead ins. You don't have to beat them or yell out stupid nicknames for 30 minutes, just get back to basics. Regardless, none of this is going to happen. This back and forth between us started because you stated that you didn't understand why people would bash ESPN. With every point I have made you seem to mostly agree. If thats the case, then why do you still think its unreasonable to poke fun at the network? If you don't like it I suggest you learn to ignore it since the ribbing isn't going away any time soon.

It is interesting you bring up the NFL. I think that is not a fair comparison. Woodson also had ton of fanfare in college and was a very high draft pick in a sport where the draft is actually followed by many fans. You just described Braun and to a lesser extent Prince (who had his name recognition), especially with all the fanfare on them in the minors (baseball's equivalent to college football). Players make the teams these days, especially those two. I guess I just think that some people that bash ESPN have unreasonable expectations. Realistic or not, I think its safe to say that a lot of viewers are flocking to the sport specific networks for nightly highlights and in depth analysis. Your opinion seems to be that ESPN does what they do for a reason and that is to satisfy as many viewers as possible. I think this is actually working against them right now and expect them to adapt to the changing landscape of information demands their viewers have. I think this process is being greatly slowed by their parent company. You have your opinion which I can understand; others have their opinion which you don't understand. That’s fine if you don't want to get the other perspective, but I for one think its perfectly acceptable to rip ESPN as they are in a perfect position to deliver a lot of great content, yet aren't.

And from traveling around the country I disagree and think a lot of baseball fans are very interested in Prince/Braun and by extension the Brewers. Look at the NFL, everyone knows the up and coming players. Charles Woodson was a national story this year in the smallest market in all of professional sports. Why? Because coverage is a lot more equal and fans want knowledge, not just what is fed to them by ESPN. You said you didn't get why people bash ESPN. I told you why I think its very reasonable and appropriate to bash them. I get your point, I just think its wrong. If you don't want to participate in some venting about ESPN then don't come in an ESPN venting thread and then tell posters in here you think they are the ones taking it personally. Im not trying to be a jerk or overreact myself, just trying to answer the questions you posed.

I didn't say that. My point is that it is a national show. Yes, but you did say "Again, why in the world would they show a ton of Brewers stuff? Relatively speaking nobody cares about the Brewers on a national level." By extension you are saying nobody cares about those stud players I mentioned, which really isn't true. I enjoy watching a network that covers those players as well as the East Coast Teams. I enjoy trade speculation that doesn't start and end with every good player in middle America going to a coast. If SportsCenter refuses to do this, which they have for quite a while, then why chastise people for ripping on them? It seems pretty reasonable and logical to me. All that being said, I do agree that baseball tonight has gotten a little better recently. Coincidence that it happened when MLB Network started pulling viewers? I doubt it.

I don't disagree at all. ESPN though doesn't stand for MLB, Baseball Network, etc. I just don't see the need to bash on ESPN over and over and over and over. They're not going to be a solution for every team. Again, why in the world would they show a ton of Brewers stuff? Relatively speaking nobody cares about the Brewers on a national level. So by that logic, why should I care about Prince, Braun, or even Zack Greinke or other small market players? You think those guys don't sell? ESPN was worthwhile before Disney took control for the simple reason that there haven't been other national options. Now that we have NFL, NBA, MLB, Big 10, and hopefully some day a Big East network we finally don't have to watch what Michael Eisner/Bob Iger/Steve Jobs decides we will watch. I hope you do well with your overlords, but I plan to get information that is useful in my fantasy leagues and find out who is the best short stop in baseball is not named Derek Jeter. Again, it is a business. ESPN isn't some PBS type channel. If you don't like it, don't watch. Done, except for the Big East. You can keep ripping on it, but it has worked for decades. Again, if you haven't noticed the change in ESPN then you are right where Marvel, Pixar, Saban Engertainment, ABC, and Miramax want you...at a Jonas Brothers concert drinking a bud light. Enjoy. I will be watching sports.

Especially when one player has a track record to indicate that they will be better than another player. That being said, McGehee has been a good "problem." I don't think anyone here is upset about the year he had at all.

When was his knee surgury? That may have effected his conditioning. And to answer the previous post, Prince is actually very athletic in my mind. I know he caries a lot of weight in the gut, but his chest and arms are huge too. I still remember standing next to him in A ball and being blown away at the size of the guy.