ESPN: East Coast Sports Programming Network

by Blez on Dec 13, 2005 10:31 PM PST in News Comment 94 comments

So I'm watching ESPNEWS to see what Gammons has to say about the Bradley deal or get some kind of response from one of their "experts."

What do I get instead? I get ESPNEWS teasing a story reported in the New York Post, one of the most ridiculously inaccurate tabloids in the country, that the Yankees are pursuing Nomar Garciaparra to play first base. Yeah, that's right. It's not even a done deal, and they lead their baseball coverage with a rumor. Not only that, but they have their expert, Tim Kurkjian, chime in on the possibility of the Holy Trinity of shortstops now playing the infield for New York.

When they finally get to the Bradley deal, they incorrectly report that the A's traded Antonio Perez and a minor leaguer to get Bradley. They didn't even get the deal correct. They also didn't bother to have anybody comment on it.

Ladies and gentlemen, can we please just change the name of ESPN to the East Coast Sports Programming Network? If Fox Sports was smart, they'd start a sports network aiming to capture West Coast sports fans. And if ESPN didn't have Gammons, Neyer and Bob Ley, they would officially be dead to me. They're also making the brilliant move of making all their intelligent commentators specific to "insiders."

It's enough to make your stomach turn.

0 recs | Comment 94 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's not important

for ESPN to be accurate, just as long as they say it first!

Wait a sec, I see a problem...

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 13, 2005 10:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

ya they did the same thing earlier

on ESPN. they had Kerjins come in and talk about baseball and they didnt even mention the A's getting bradley, they talked about the Yankees... I told a friend I wanted to bomb the East coast so they had to be WEST COAST biased.... but i guess thats where all the people are....so you gotta give them what they want. I still dont like it though

"Baseball is like church, many attend, few understand" - Leo Durocher

by gWiLiKeRzZz on Dec 13, 2005 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's just disgusting

For one day, they can make the Athletics the lead baseball story. F'n Yankees.

by Blez on Dec 13, 2005 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's cool....

We'll get lots of prime time come October.

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 13, 2005 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen to that

Come October, I hope the Yankees have fallen apart.

"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." Henny Youngman

by franzy on Dec 13, 2005 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why wait?

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 14, 2005 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i prefer the shadows

to the lime light...

one of the only years the A's were predicted to win the west in preseason was 2004.... and we all know how that ended.

"Baseball is like church, many attend, few understand" - Leo Durocher

by gWiLiKeRzZz on Dec 13, 2005 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would you want to hear about...

a "mid market baseball team" when you can hear about Omar Minaya's lust for every baseball player on the market or what the Yankees might possibly think about consider doing?

Don't worry, if I ever work for ESPN, I'll change things.

Lead story: A's plan to re-sign Barry Zito to long-term deal! Peter, is this the biggest signing in history, or should we just gab about it like it is!

Oh yeah, and the Yankees played baseball, or something like that.

"Free." - Dan Johnson's beer of choice... RIP Richard Pryor

by JLaff on Dec 13, 2005 10:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here, here!

If it wasn't for the ever diminishing actual sports on ESPN I wouldn't watch it anymore. To be honest I hardly watch except baseball tonight. Even that is agonizingly frustrating due to lack of A's coverage.

"Don't you play the flute, Huddy?"

by capper3 on Dec 13, 2005 10:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I was wondering what the hell they were talking

about. They said the A's got Bradley for two players. I was all like, "WTF?!?!"

by kvn on Dec 13, 2005 10:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Blez please explain

""They're also making the brilliant move of making all their intelligent commentators specific to "insiders."

It's enough to make your stomach turn.""

Never thought of you as a hater to people making money. I mean seriously what are they going to do trick people into paying to read Joe Morgan?

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 13, 2005 10:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think the problem is

that all the decent analysis is being buried in the espn insider thingy. I'm all for capitalism but having to pay for every scoop is a drag.

by kvn on Dec 13, 2005 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blez has no problem with PEOPLE

making money.

But that damn mouse is rich enough!

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 13, 2005 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They make plenty of money with advertising

The thing is they're moving all content worth reading to a pay service. They can just as easily make it the GM Rob Neyer's column and get just as much money for it. It's poor choices.

by Blez on Dec 13, 2005 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Greed is Good!!!

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 13, 2005 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

who are you michael douglas?

by kvn on Dec 13, 2005 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 13, 2005 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thinking zita-jones no doubt

the great playoff miss of 2004 followed by the good try of 2005.

by ak_A on Dec 27, 2005 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

It's done wonders for baseball!

by broaklyn on Dec 14, 2005 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And they're getting a bitter response too...

I've noticed that I use ESPN much less now that Peter Gammons and Co. are for pay only. I'll go there to verify major news and that's about it. I have found other sites which scour the same wire reports and provide as equally credible analysis as Gammons, Kurkjian or Neyer, without the tripe from Kruk or Morgan.

Despite that, I did sign up for the month-long trial a couple weeks back so that I could get winter meeting info. I don't plan on paying for it after the trial ends.

*********************

just a little story though that some people might find useful...

I signed up for this same free trial a few years back, and during the course of the month I lost my credit card and had to get a new card with a new number. Because of this I never bothered to cancel the membership for my free trial since they didn't have my credit card information anymore. But they kept my access open for the next year and a half, every month sending me an email that my credit card information didn't work and that I should contact them immediately if I wanted to continue my membership.

I don't know if they've fixed this glitch or not, but it was nice while it lasted.

by okteds on Dec 14, 2005 12:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like...

Peter Gammons, but do people actually PAY to hear him now? Why? My list of people I would pay to listen to is very, very short and Gammons never crossed the radar screen, never.

by doubleplayer on Dec 14, 2005 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not to be unethical

But it's only $5 a month...if you split it with 10 friends, its 50 cents...haha

by SeanR on Dec 14, 2005 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Look, it's better to be in the dark out west

how else is Billy Beane going to get Coletti's underwear off without him noticing.

I'm a White Sox fan, but damn, props to Beane, that was a hell of a trade.

by spengler on Dec 13, 2005 10:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

sports center tonight was a joke

more than half was about the freaking heat, and An actual trade got 30 seconds while a rediculous rumor got extended coverage. of course they chose to show the film of MB fighting the fan..... its really starting to get old

by OAKobsession on Dec 13, 2005 10:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said

that if the pilgrims landed in California then the East Coast would still be wilderness.

47% of the US population lives in the Eastern time zone. Let em have the provincial bias - I will gladly trade it for the quality of life out here.

by southofcruiseamerica on Dec 13, 2005 10:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

they have water-bugs

by kvn on Dec 13, 2005 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

come on man

waterbugs are what your landlord calls roaches

by NYC on Dec 14, 2005 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but waterbugs are bigger

The NY post is the worst paper ever. But it's kinda enjoyable to read, kinda like watching a car wreck. If it wasn't for AN and my occassional trips back to Santa Cruz, I wouldn't hear much at all about the Athletics.

by brothersky on Dec 14, 2005 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN ombudsman:

Not that it will do that much good, but you could air your grievances (isn't festivus just around the corner) to the ombudsman...

Not that I'm surprised

There's a reason why I check AN every day to find out what's going on with the A's before hitting ESPN...

by RickeySteals on Dec 13, 2005 11:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

EVERYBODY Email Him.

Great idea rickey.

Everyone send an email. Include a link to this discussion.

The dude actually writes an interesting column on espn.com about all the stupid shit they do.

The link again: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=2097428

by Josh on Dec 14, 2005 1:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My letter to the ombudsman:

Dear Mr. Solomon,
I write because frankly, I was quite dissappointed tonight with ESPN's coverage of the Oakland Athletics' acquisition of Milton Bradley. It was given practically no airtime on ESPNEWS (in favor of a trade rumor from the New York Post...which in my eyes, is a not a reliable news source), and when it finally was covered, the information provided was inaccurate!

What's up with that? For the A's, this is a BIG acquisition. In all of baseball it's a big acquisition! We gave up only 1 minor league prospect for 2 MLB-ready players! How is a trade RUMOR bigger news than actual NEWS??

The error in reporting, combined with the lack of attention anyone other than the biggest-market teams get, is incredibly frustrated and reflects a clear bias in your programming. In my eyes, it takes away from any integrity ESPN has, because it's clear you only focus on the major markets--nothing else. I'll put it in stark terms: YOUR TOP PRIORITY IS NO LONGER SPORTS, IT IS MONEY. This is wrong.

Coupled with ESPN.com's shift to the insider service, which completely precludes me from having access to ANY useful information that I previously could get on your site without having to pay, this latest ESPN guffaw is the last straw. I'm done with you guys, unless you can do something to ameliorate the situation. I know I'm not the only one that's unhappy and I'll make sure to spread my dissatisfaction with ESPN to all those I know, which is actually quite large considering the voice weblogs give people today. Then again, I doubt I'll ever hear back from you or anyone else at ESPN regarding my actual opinions on the matter because you're too busy focusing on the Yankees/Mets, Lakers/Heat or USC to care about a mid-market contender that won't go away.

Regretfully,
rungood

"You can't get any more 'Oakland' than the Coliseum. Get any more 'Oakland' and you're in San Leandro!" -Random Drunk Bum at Game

by rungood on Dec 14, 2005 1:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Their top priority is money?

They are a business.....I would hope so.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 14, 2005 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

on one hand

yes, they want to be profitable. any business should have this as a goal. but when you see business plans, this is always the 2nd or 3rd goal after "provide a quality product/service" and/or "keep the customer happy."

What I was trying to get at in my letter was that perhaps they are misguided in terms of what their priorities should be, and viewers are realizing it and calling them out on it. If no one complains, the little that they do offer will continue to erode and we'll be left with even less (if it's possible). But by pointing out that viewers understand what is going on, we have a (tiny) hope of swaying them back in the direction we want them to go. If enough people email and complain, they'll be much more likely to do something, as opposed to if every keeps their mouth shut.

Perhaps you're just apathetic to what I'm saying because you're more of a pessimist regarding my ability to make an impact. Certainly I can't do anything singularly, but if enough people share the same input we can have a voice. An emailing, can't do anything to worsen the situation, so I figured, why not?

Maybe others feel the same way, maybe not.

"You can't get any more 'Oakland' than the Coliseum. Get any more 'Oakland' and you're in San Leandro!" -Random Drunk Bum at Game

by rungood on Dec 14, 2005 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's a reason I call them BSPN

"I like Band Camp. He hits things." ~ Kyli (9/24/05)

by AsGirl on Dec 13, 2005 11:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

hee hee

by blueconversechucks on Dec 14, 2005 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am a West Coast fan and always have been

and I think the anti-ESPN thing is so ridiculous. People care more about the Yankees and Red Sox than the A's...and not just in NY. I can promise in LA people care more about those teams than the A's. That is just a fact of baseball.

How much are USC and Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart on ESPN the last 3 years. How bout Vince Young and Texas? How bout the Lakers and Kobe or the whole Kobe vs. Shaq thing that run 100 tiems a day for 6 months? Constantly. None of them are on the East Coast.

They dont talk about Syracuse and Virginia football because they are East Coast. They never even mention the Knicks anymore because they are irrelevant except when they fired Larry Brown.

They talk about what is popular and what their ratings people think people want to hear. They are in the ratings business, plain and simple.

Now I get upset sometimes too when the A's are the 15th highlight of the night, but I would rather root for the little underdog anyways..screw the big popular teams and their large bandwagons. And I sure as hell would rather watch Sportscenter than the local So Cal Sports Report crap Fox throws out there.

In the second half of last year, Gammons wouldnt shut up about the A's. He talks about Beane in a positive manner in almsot every single column he writes. I get emails from friends all the time asking why ESPN and Gammons never stop talking about Beane.

It really is all a matter a perspective and the grass being greener on the other side.

Im sure this wont be a popular opinion and it is nothing personal against anyone..Just my opinion on the constant ESPN East Coast bashing that goes on here. I think it is significantly off base.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 13, 2005 11:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't cost ESPN anything

to do their homework on the deal, and to give it attention.

Of course it won't be as much as the Yanks, but to play this story so small, especially with nothing else important going on in sports tonight comes off as arrogant ignorance.

ESPN: "We don't report it 'cause we don't have to."

"I'm so green and gold that I hang on every pitch, not just every game." - Lew Wolff

by BleacherDrummer on Dec 13, 2005 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The show is live..they made a mistake

on a Minor league going in a deal....Cmon now. That happens all the time.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 13, 2005 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I give you credit as being more tolerant than the average fanatic.

"I'm so green and gold that I hang on every pitch, not just every game." - Lew Wolff

by BleacherDrummer on Dec 13, 2005 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Can I copy and paste that to all my

ex-girlfriends? :-)

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 13, 2005 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent

While I don't like your view on Bradley's character, you hit this one 100%.

Bradley isn't being covered as much as Nomar because no one really cares about Bradley. Nomar is, well, Nomar. Will Bradley help win more games than Nomar? Yeah, but he's not THE MAN

by SeanR on Dec 13, 2005 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks...

But you might be the only oen to agree. :-) Which is cool...just my feeling on it...I respect the opposite viewpoint too and have nothing but respect for Blez's opinions.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 13, 2005 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

espn

gots to pay the bills first, so they will cover whatever is HOT in big metro(s) and things that hook the "i've never liked [insert] until my the [insert HOT team] got into the playoffs". it's a media giant in the sports news realm, just like clear channel and radio one.

so much on my mind, i just can't recline -respiration

by ucla kid on Dec 13, 2005 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Blez

Its good to see a rant about ESPN. Once Gammons went Insider I stopped going to their site. Theres just no point anymore unless you pay. Not to mention being bombarded by lizards running across the screen, huge trucks, or gatorade all over the place.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Dec 13, 2005 11:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Even if there was a West Coast network......

It'd probably resemble KNBR and give most attention to the National League.

Pick your battles, Blez. This isn't one we're gonna win any time soon.

by Rob on Dec 13, 2005 11:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Rumors vs. Trades

I don't know if this is true at SportsBlogs, Blez, but I've noticed over at BaseballToaster that we get more traffic from trade rumors than from actual trades. Wouldn't surprise me if the same was true for TV.

No wonder Gammons is king, eh?

by kenarneson on Dec 13, 2005 11:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

A very wise man

once said of the press, "The good thing is that I don't care what they write." Granted, it would be nice to get some insight from the experts into the players involved here, but you're not likely to get that from ESPN in any case.

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me, either." - Billy Beane

by andeux on Dec 13, 2005 11:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not entirely accurate

...because ESPN loves 'em some Kobe Bryant and Lakers. They're more of the Big Money/Superstar Network.

by gawker on Dec 13, 2005 11:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

I rely on ESPN to get sports news and highlights, and I watch Pardon The Interruption every chance I get. However, the expansion of SportsCenter into a one-hour show has watered down the quality of the show considerably. The various on-air commentators they use, and the countless phony interview sessions, The Budweiser hot seat, the Coors sixpack of questions ... pretender/contender ... they have this enormous stable of BAD commentators answering stupid questions. The other day, after they showed highlights from a game in which the Raptors beat the Hawks (giving the Hawks the worst record in the NBA), they then asked Jay Bilas, "Who is the NBA's worst team?" and despite the result of the game, he chose the Raptors. I guess they don't even need to play the games anymore; they can just consult some know-it-all in-studio as to "who's the best team?" It's hard to watch.

by rubin sierra on Dec 14, 2005 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's see that again!

The best part is when they show highlights from a basketball game, usually of a dunk, and then they quietly slip in that the team actually lost. But who cares, right? Let's see Lebron one more time! And now from a different vantage point! And now in slow motion! The Cavs ended up losing this one... BUT LOOK AT THAT SHOT! IT'S UTTER PERFECTION!

East, west, it's all the same. They love superstars, big names, however well or badly they do. Sometimes I think ESPN has so much invested in these big names, precisely because it's built them up so much now (think Michelle Wie), it's afraid of looking absolutely stupid if they actually turned out to be duds. So every chance it gets, it'll keep larding on the hype.

by gawker on Dec 15, 2005 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just east coast

...it's simply about the big-market teams. Although has anyone else noticed how every time a pitcher is traded, there's video of that pitcher striking out an Athletic 90% of the time? Wassupitdat?

Something big crashes in the clubhouse.

by SF Geoff on Dec 13, 2005 11:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I have wondered that for years...

it can't be just coincidence.

Maybe we just notice the uniform, whereas in other clips you would focus on the pitcher.

hollowspec: What's your favorite beer? Dan Johnson: Free.

by FireballerHARDEN on Dec 14, 2005 12:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought I was crazy

but then I really started to pay attention, and it's ridiculous- ESPN shows more Oakland baseball when some National League pitcher gets traded than on most in-season Baseball Tonights.

Something big crashes in the clubhouse.

by SF Geoff on Dec 14, 2005 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I always thought I was nuts.

Man. It'd be interesting if someone sat down and just counted the frequency that certain teams appear in clips like that as the victim.

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." -Robert S. Wieder

by Kyli on Dec 14, 2005 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought was what i heard on the espn radio today

too. Great reporting fellas.

Simming Offseason.....

by robber23 on Dec 14, 2005 12:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I have my very own ESPN...

It can be found at athleticsnation.com.

I haven't been to ESPN.com since Gammons went "Insider". What a crock.

by HigherPie on Dec 14, 2005 12:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Who cares what

some drunk sportswriter or analyst says anyway, 90% of the time they are wrong or incorrect. I never check ESPN anymore, they say nothing anyway. Remember a short week ago, the Bradley deal was not going to happen because the A's wouldn't trade them Zito? All the trade rumors are nothing but stories concocted by sportswriters who have had too much to drink.
Has anyone other than Gammons ever reported a potential deal that the A's were involved in that was remotely accurate? BB is his own man and every deal he has made has surprised everyone.

by china bob on Dec 14, 2005 12:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

you jest

but there is actually a lot of alcoholism amongst sportwriters in this country... i'm having trouble googling up the study right now, but I recall reading about it in the last year. I used Lexis Nexis, but I can't find it there either. Maybe I'm making it all up... oh well. it's too late here to devote more time to that.

Go A's -- Nebraska

by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 14, 2005 1:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gammons

My guess is that GMs use Gammons on a regular basis to float trade rumors amongst themselves, and Gammons obliges. Suppose Beane is thinking about stealing David Wells from the Sox (to then flip him to the Padres) but doesn't want to approach them directly. He goes to Gammons, who puts it in his column, putting the Pads and Sox on notice. Or maybe it's the Red Sox, trying to extract more than Woody Williams from the Pads, who are using Gammons to pad the idea that San Diego has competition. Or maybe it's the Padres, trying to let the BoSox know that Beane will act as a third party. In any event, the rumor winds up false because it was never true in the first place. At least that's my guess.

Also, at this point, Dayn Perry of FoxSports is more than the equal of Rob Neyer, and Ken Rosenthal is just as much on the inside as Gammons. Between SI.com, FoxSports.com and CBSSportsline.com, there's more than enough baseball information to go around. Besides, who wants to pay to read what Joe Morgan or Harold Reynolds think?

by richwol on Dec 14, 2005 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bay Area Fox Sports Net! Holla!

YABU: You're always eating cheese. ...Is cheese good for you? . FISCHER: IT'S BETTER THAN SUSHI!!!

by ConditionOakland on Dec 14, 2005 1:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

this "Insider" sycophancy,

where reporters act as stenographers for the perceived "powers," is the living death of real journalism in this country.

Just ask the reporter formerly known as Bob Woodward, or any of the countless "journalists" who have their little heads so far up the rear ends of those they claim to report on that they have come to take a liking to the view.

ESPN is to sports reporting what Velveeta is to real cheese.

1972...1973...1974...1989...2006

by emperor nobody on Dec 14, 2005 2:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

As I recall...

If Fox Sports was smart, they'd start a sports network aiming to capture West Coast sports fans.

...Fox did this with a non-sports channel and it was very sucessful. Of course, the competition didn't like it and many of the original network's viewers cried foul.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 14, 2005 4:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Depends what you mean by "successful"

If you're talking about Fox News Channel, it's not a very apt comparison. From a business point of view, FNC is a weak product which survives only because it's indirectly subsidized by other Fox products.

For the first several years FNC ratings were horrible. Cable companies all around the country wanted to drop it, but Fox made it part of the contract that if you don't carry FNC you can't have any of the Fox channels. The cable companies took it only because they had to, same as the various locally mandated public access stations that hardly anyone watches. After a few years, FNC built up a loyal audience, but even now it still isn't a big money maker, and the advertisers it does get know that they're contributing because they support the cause, not because it's a good buy for viewership. (To some extent, that's true of all news stations.)

Basically, Rupert Murdoch felt there was a point of view that wasn't being heard enough on TV, so he was willing to use his company to make sure that point of view had a vehicle, whether it was profitable or not. Whether you agree or disagree with FNC's mission -- and I don't think anyone wants a debate about that here -- that's the fact about the station from a business point of view. FNC is not a demand-driven venture and it never has been.

by iglew on Dec 14, 2005 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

FoxNews is not a news station.

It's a propaganda outlet.

by richwol on Dec 14, 2005 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I hate for my first AN post to be non-baseball. And I certainly don't want to get into the politics.

But... Fox News has 10 of the top 11 rated programs for cable news networks (as of Nov. '05). Perhaps it started out as subsidized, but it's pretty difficult to argue that it's not currently successful.

Personally, I'd be very excited to get an alternative to ESPN. I like ESPN, but more legitimate competition will make them all get better. Maybe the "best damn sports show" will even get cancelled.

I can only hope...

by booya on Dec 14, 2005 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ratings

Fox News regularly beats CNN in minute shares, but CNN regularly beats Fox in cumulative totals. The former is what is released to the public; the latter is offered only to paid subscribers of Nielsen, and it's what all the ad buyers use. That's why CNN still commands 20% higher ad rates and is more profitable over all.

You're right that Fox's audience is growing, and it's definitely gaining on CNN, but at this point it's still not clear whether Fox News is making money at all. (Neither station reports income separate from the corporate parent.) It is pretty clear, however, that it isn't a great financial success, even now.

For a pretty good discussion of ratings data and cable news stations, see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005. That's from last year, but the basic concepts haven't changed.

(I agree that better competition would improve ESPN.)

by iglew on Dec 14, 2005 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome to my world!

I totaly understand being an A's fan in the heart of yankee country with a sprinkle of RedSox
fans. My father and one brother are yankees fans, while another brother is a mets fan' but then the other is a braves fan. So you see how hard ive got it? Yankees Yankees Yankees if i were balding i would say that is the reason.
Oh by the way almost all my uncles and aunts are Big Big redsox fans WELCOME TO MY WORLD ANERS. By the way have bean an A's fan since i was about eight so GO A's!

by sctr76 on Dec 14, 2005 5:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

White Sox get Vasquez

White Sox: Vasquez
D-backs: Chris Young, Orlando Hernandez

Good deal for the sox, but didn't Vasquez want to go the East Coast? Young could be really good, but they've improved an already good rotation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2258626

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Dec 14, 2005 6:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Apparently, it's Vazquez with a z. Never noticed that before.

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Dec 14, 2005 6:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

IMO, it strengthens them because:

El Duque, while quite the pitcher is not someone you can count on to pitch 180-200+ innings.

For many of the same reasons that I like the Loaiza move I like this one as well.

Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste." -Tug McGraw

by saint on Dec 14, 2005 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

blez...

i dont think anyone around here is surprised at all.. espn is just the east coast version of E TV...its lame and talks about nothing....
On the bright side, its what makes our organization so good: we do things the right way and dont need narcissism to know we are headed in the right direction. Its the California way, and why the West Coast is vbastly superior to the other coast, which Ive already forgotten. I think BB is shaping this team into a WS champion...and if they win it all, espn will probably lead with a Manny trade rumor. Do you think the White Sox are getting their just due as far as coverage? they had an awesome post-season, but they dont have red sox/yankees in their logo, so they go "unnoticed"

tdwclark

by tdwclark on Dec 14, 2005 6:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

kill your TV

by Brian in 317 on Dec 14, 2005 7:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

sorry meant to say more

but my daughter fell off a chair and I had to attend to her.

SCREW ESPN! Let 'em fixate on their Yanks and Bosox. They'll just be eating a bigger crow (a f#@&ing RAVEN) when we kick their favorites' asses!

Do you think Billy Beane watches ESPN. HELL NO!

I hate TV in general, ESPN in particular. Don't let yourself be brainwashed by the crap the mainstream media tries to get you to buy into.

by Brian in 317 on Dec 14, 2005 7:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

I was just screaming in my car an hour ago at KNBR... stupid Homer Liotta bitching about how "scruffy" the A's players are (hello, Tim, have you even actually SEEN most of the A's players since the Giambi boys left? "Scruffy?") -- then Brian Murphy tries to start a fair conversation about the trade...

Murph: "Wow, just look at the A's outfield now! Mark Kotsay..."

Liotta: "eh."

Murph: "...Jay Payton..."

Liotta: "eh."

Murph: "Why are you 'eh'ing those guys?!"

Liotta: "Well, when ya have BARRY BONDS in town..."

(that's where I started screaming something like, "Murph's not talking about hitting! Are you actually getting snotty about Kotsay's & Payton's fielding in favor of BONDS'S cranky busted old ass?!" because, you know, they can hear me through the radio, so my screaming is productive...)

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me," Beane told Forst.

by Poppy on Dec 14, 2005 7:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

kill your radio!

Liotta is a MORON. I'm glad to hear you say Murphy was more receptive to talking positively about the A's. He seems like a straight shooter (and along with Tolbert and the great Rick Barry he may be the only one on KNBR who likes the A's). I particularly like Tolbert, who is an Angels fan, but is very honest and respectful toward the A's.

by Brian in 317 on Dec 14, 2005 7:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Screw ESPN

I haven't watched it in years. From what I'm hearing, I haven't missed a thing.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 14, 2005 7:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Does the Bradley trade remind anyone else ...

of a team from last year that was good, occasionally made the the playoffs, but never got over the hump? Then they signed a supposed "clubhouse cancer", who turned out to get along fine with everyone on his team, and just maybe provide the fire to a team that was maybe a little too laid back.

That player was AJ Pierzynski and that team is the 2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox.

"HRs by second basemen are sexy. They're rare and exotic." -Kyli

by McFood on Dec 14, 2005 8:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

I appreciate that you're trying to look at this in a positive light, but Bradley is a clubhouse cancer while Pierzynski is just a clubhouse pimple. Huge difference.

by socal on Dec 14, 2005 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As Pierzynski would reportedly suggest...

booyah!

What's a naughty travel kit and will it pass customs?

by franks a lot on Dec 14, 2005 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huge Difference?

I would tend to believe that Jeff Kent, being the major jerk that he is, would be more of a clubhouse cancer than Bradley. Hell, I love the idea of a guy with some fire and grit playing for the A's. I love the man's intensity; baseball and emotions should not be separated. I think he'll be fine in the A's clubhouse, the real question is, how healthy will he be and does this trade mean we're done adding on the offensive end? Considering what other people have posted here, there will be a major logjam between the outfield, DH, and 1B (not to mention Chavez needing to take off about 30 games a year at third, which would place him at DH). If we sign Thomas and he plays 100 games, that leaves a tight rotation between Swish, DJ, Bradley, Kotsay, Payton, and Kielty. Someone will get left out here and probably only play about 30 games, and that will probably be Kielty:

Kotsay - 135
Swisher - 130
Johnson - 130
Bradley - 120-140 (depending on health)
Payton - 120-130
Thomas - 100
Chavez at DH - 30 (at most)
Kielty - 15-45

Somebody's not gonna be happy, and I'd rather not sit Bradley or Payton for those reasons. However, this rotation is very, very nice and gives us tons of options against RHP and LHP.

by baseb3383 on Dec 14, 2005 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The A's didn't acquire Kent

so does it really matter that he's as much of a team chemistry problem as Bradley?

And what if Bradley struggles and Macha benches him four games a week? How is Bradley going to handle that?

by socal on Dec 14, 2005 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at Macha's track record

Macha doesn't bench struggling players especially if they are filling important holes in the lineup. He did not bench Chavez even though he was below the Mendoza line for the first half of the season, and he was patient with Crosby, Swisher, Johnson, and others. I would expect nothing different in Bradley's case; Macha would not bench him for 4 games because he was struggling. Wouldn't any player be upset with that? Finally, in reference to my comments about Jeff Kent, I'm just saying that the Bradley situation was overblown by a rabid Los Angeles press that was disappointed by an underachieving Dodgers team. I tend to believe Jeff Kent was as much as problem for the chemistry of the Dodgers as Bradley was. Take that however you will, but I think Bradley is a great fit for the mellow A's clubhouse and will be a star in Oakland. He's definitely worth the risk given that we gave Los Angeles a prospect with no major league time (given he was a good one, but he was at the peak of his value before any question marks might arise as to his future in the majors). Anytime you receive two major league quality players for one prospect, that's highway robbery.

by baseb3383 on Dec 14, 2005 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LMAO

MB is a clubhouse cancer? That couldn't be further from the truth. AJ is a clubhouse cancer. Jose Guillen is a clubhouse cancer. Jeff Kent is a clubhouse cancer. Milton Bradley is NOT a clubhouse cancer. All his former teammates love him and he loves them back. Milton Bradley has anger issues, yes, but that does not a clubhouse cancer make.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 14, 2005 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"east coast baseball tonight"

I agree, I have found that I do not watch baseball tonight anymore. The A's could win 30 in a row and it would be.."oh, by the way the a's won..." Perhaps they could spend more time showing how the Yankees tied their shoes.

by billyball1981 on Dec 14, 2005 9:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

ESPN Altermative here is Comcast Sports

Actually Comcast sports net showed a good piece on Bradley today with Billy interview. Highlights of Bradley dumping bag of baseball's on the field make you glad you just dumped your leading minor league candidate for "Head case of the Year".

Morada Mudshark

by Morada Mudshark on Dec 14, 2005 9:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Someone...

on the official A's forum posted a nice link listing previous Texas League MVPs, which included the likes of Ginter, Piatt, and Ethier. Still, Chad Tracy was on the list, so the argument isn't completely perfect.

What's a naughty travel kit and will it pass customs?

by franks a lot on Dec 14, 2005 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Milton vs Macha will be a 10 round bout:

It will make T-Long vs Macha look like Spinx vs Tyson!!!

Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste." -Tug McGraw

by saint on Dec 14, 2005 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

East Sports Programming Network?

Hey, what does the "E" stand for anyway? I have no idea.

by iglew on Dec 14, 2005 11:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

it's eastern...really

I'm under the impression that at its conception, ESPN, being relatively small and in Bristol, CT. was and still is the Eastern Sports Network...so I guess the defense can rest on a technicality.

Something big crashes in the clubhouse.

by SF Geoff on Dec 14, 2005 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Entertainment

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on Dec 14, 2005 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares

About ESPN, you guys think they care about a disgruntled outfielder going to Oakland? They get ratings or supposed 'backup' from the east coast teams to talk about there teams, the Yankees are marketable, now getting the wrong deal down now that is downright ridicolous. Enertainment Sports and Programming Network is what it stands for.

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it.-W. M. Lewis

by doublehustle22 on Dec 14, 2005 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

NY Post

The Post isn't where you go for actual real-world news, but its sports section is, I think, well-regarded. It's certainly more substantial than the pitiful sports section the "Paper of Record" manages to put out every day.

by doctawojo on Dec 14, 2005 5:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

ESPN WILL BE PISSED WHEN THEY SEE

that Milton Bradley will keep a level head and be the fire in the belly of a much improved A's line up. No one happens to mention all of the great community work that Bradley does. It's overshadowed by his short temper and off the field problems. Hey, none of us are perfect and the media is just waiting, or maybe baiting him, hoping he'll explode. It's been mentioned that the bay area media is very laid back and the Oakland clubhouse is the same way. i can't wait until Bradley puts up carreer numbers this year for a contender while keeping a low profile and helping out in the Oakland community. ESPN and all of the haters on AN and everywhere else will be eating crow. I think this was a genius move by BB and I respect him for putting his ass on the line to make it happen. Baseball's underdog hero comes home to the Underdog City. I lOVE THIS MOVE!

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by haren4prez on Dec 14, 2005 11:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs