Kyle Drabek, the centerpiece of Toronto's return in the Roy Halladay trade and the 2010 Eastern League leader in wins, has been promoted from Double-A New Hampshire. The son of Doug Drabek will make his major league debut on Wednesday, in Baltimore. Brett Cecil, the scheduled starter, has been pushed back a couple of days.
I was definitely more excited to see Travis Snider make his debut, but Drabek's start definitely has me the most excited to see a pitcher since the Halladay-Burnett duel way back when.
I'm totally cool with this. Every young starter needs to go through a period in which he is beaten soundly about the head and shoulders by major league hitters - that's the only way to learn how to get them out. He might as well start now.
Luckily for me its on SNET-1 so I don't have to expend any energy getting exited. :(
Luckily for me its on SNET-1 so I don't have to expend any energy getting exited. :(
Did they switch this? I could have sworn when I checked earlier that it was listed as regular Sportsnet. This is unfortunate, I was really excited to watch this.
Did they switch this? I could have sworn when I checked earlier that it
was listed as regular Sportsnet. This is unfortunate, I was really
excited to watch this.
It must've been an error on the Blue Jays site. I checked the old press release from July that listed the Jays games on Sportsnet None, and Wednesday's game was listed as being on the new channel.
Thank goodness my Rogers Wireless contract is up. I'm switching to a different wireless provider as a result of this Sportsnet fiasco. If Rogers doesn't value my loyalty to their company and the Blue Jays, I will happily take my business elsewhere.
It must've been an error on the Blue Jays site. I checked the old press release from July that listed the Jays games on Sportsnet None, and Wednesday's game was listed as being on the new channel.
Thank goodness my Rogers Wireless contract is up. I'm switching to a different wireless provider as a result of this Sportsnet fiasco. If Rogers doesn't value my loyalty to their company and the Blue Jays, I will happily take my business elsewhere.
I will follow Original Ryan to another service provider. Also, I do not hesitate to tell anyone who will listen how Rogers has tuned out and turned off Blue Jay fans with their channels shenanigans.
Right there with you guys. I will NOT support Sportsnet One as a matter of principle. I'll listen on the radio, which is better coverage anyway. If they don't learn their lesson from this I'll subscribe to MLB.TV and become a permanent Reds fan (since they blackout Jays games across Canada).
Sadly this ridiculously greedy behaviour takes away from what should be a very exciting game. All the best Kyle.
As much as I dislike defending Rogers, it's relevant to note that CTV did the exact same thing with TSN2 once it was approved by the CRTC - it moved a bunch of Raptors game to that channel in order to force basketball fans to puchase the channel. I don't agree with Rogers strategy with respect to Sportsnet One but let's face it - any other broadcaster would do the exact same thing. It's akin to wireless service providers charging customers for texting when SMS messages literally take up zero space on their wireless network and do not contribute to network congestion - it's a cash grab for the sake of a cash grab and designed to modify consumer behaviour to line the pockets of the service provider. Cancelling your Rogers subscription will have zero impact on its programming decisions, unfortunately. Cable companies and wireless companies effectively have regional monopolies in this country - and, in Rogers' case, it's the dominant service provider of both services in the largest market in the country. Cha-ching.
Though TSN went from one station to two. Sportsnet is going from four to five - they do offer different content on each channel. I think the issue is they want a reaonable fee from the distributors, Shaw, Bell, etc. Shaw and Bell don't believe there's additional content that can justify them charging the customer for it.
It's all about principle, though. Who cares if it has zero impact as long as they're not collecting your hard-earned income?
With concern to CTV, at least they didn't own the teams. And If I do recall correctly, Rogers Sportsnet was none too pleased with CTV's decision and was open about it. Waxing hypocrisy, anybody?
Rogers has a golden opportunity to use a baseball game as a super long commercial to promote the team and recruit a fan base. I don't know if it was working or not, but a lot of people are commenting on how the average Torontonian barhopper was getting back into the Jays because of the future of the team. I think a lot of this correlates to being able to channelsurf and see the Jays on regular programming after you begin to hear good things about them at the watercooler or in the media. If I'm not a baseball fan or a Jays fan, I will never pay money to watch them, but would probably get interested by watching it on TV if there's "nothing on." I have to admit this is how I generally find out which TV shows I like and go on to purchase season series DVDs for. It's a natural progression: Awareness (Jays in media/watercooler) > Interest (how about those Jays?) > Availablity (on regular RSN programming) > Potential Fan Outcome (this isn't bad! Let me call up my baseball friend and go to a game).
This all goes to say that Rogers has an interest in filling up the Rogers Centre. I'm not convinced they have much of a care.
A couple of comments about Rogers...
Several years ago I changed from Rogers to Bell. I was unimpressed with the quality of service from Rogers and told them so. I warned them I would leave unless they could offer me, an existing client, the same package of goodies they were offering new clients to come on board. They said no, presumably thinking they were calling my bluff. I left, as I said I would, and ever since then I have been receiving bimonthly notes of enticement to return, in which I am offered the same package I had previously been asking for to stay.
If Rogers' rationale in making it more difficult/expensive to watch Blue Jays games on television is to somehow convince those same bodies to go to the games in person -- and I don't know that this is their rationale -- it would be misguided. Because of TBS, the Atlanta Braves became (though are no longer) America's team because of the ubiquity of their product. There is no reason that the Blue Jays could not become Canada's team. Why punish someone outside of the GTA by denying them access to the product? Their recourse won't be to hop a flight to Toronto. Once the fans are convinced that the team is in contention, those within the GTA will return to the stadium.
On a final note, the decision to move to SN1 mid-season was a cynical cash grab which I think was aimed less at existing Rogers clients as at those using other providers. Now, many have no options when it comes to providers, so all they can do is lobby their providers to start carrying SN1. And those of us with options are presumably expected to line up to switch over to Rogers. I wonder how much of that is really happening. Had SN1 been introduced after the season, and had all providers agreed to carry it as an option, there would have been some backlash, to be sure, but not nearly of the current magnitude. I can't help but think that Rogers miscalculated this situation quite dramatically.
Though TSN went from one station to two. Sportsnet is going from four
to five - they do offer different content on each channel. I think the
issue is they want a reaonable fee from the distributors, Shaw, Bell,
etc. Shaw and Bell don't believe there's additional content that can
justify them charging the customer for it.
I don't believe that there was enough content to justify SN1's creation. Quite often Sportsnet has aired other baseball games on the regional channels when the Blue Jays have been on SN1. For example, tomorrow night all four regional channels are getting the Yankees-Rays. Other than during the Memorial Cup earlier this year, I don't think there have been many actual scheduling conflicts with Blue Jays broadcasts. Moving the Jays to SN1 was utter foolishness.
As it stands now, the regional channels carry very little regional content. Rogers could've applied to the CRTC to amend the license of one of its regional channels and convert it into a national channel for those rare times when there are scheduling conflicts. Rogers had alternatives to the creation of SN1.
I don't believe that there was enough content to justify SN1's creation. Quite often Sportsnet has aired other baseball games on the regional channels when the Blue Jays have been on SN1. For example, tomorrow night all four regional channels are getting the Yankees-Rays. Other than during the Memorial Cup earlier this year, I don't think there have been many actual scheduling conflicts with Blue Jays broadcasts. Moving the Jays to SN1 was utter foolishness.
As it stands now, the regional channels carry very little regional content. Rogers could've applied to the CRTC to amend the license of one of its regional channels and convert it into a national channel for those rare times when there are scheduling conflicts. Rogers had alternatives to the creation of SN1.
"I think the issue is they want a reaonable fee from the distributors, Shaw, Bell, etc. Shaw and Bell don't believe there's additional content that can justify them charging the customer for it."
My wife used to work for the local cable provider and is good friends with a lady who still works there. They are a small company and get their programming from Shaw. What I've been told is that the real stickler is that Rogers is insisting that SNET-1 be included in the basic digital package and that does have rather large implications as even non-sportsfans will be soaked for the additional fee.
My wife used to work for the local cable provider and is good friends with a lady who still works there. They are a small company and get their programming from Shaw. What I've been told is that the real stickler is that Rogers is insisting that SNET-1 be included in the basic digital package and that does have rather large implications as even non-sportsfans will be soaked for the additional fee.
"I don't believe that there was enough content to justify SN1's creation."
You don't think "poker after dark" is important? ;)
You don't think "poker after dark" is important? ;)
I actually love Poker after Dark, but there's plenty of room for both baseball and poker.
Personally, I was getting tired of the Blue Jays getting in the way of my pub games and the Daily Line. Good thing Rogers stepped up and made this change for me. Now if they could just find away to charge me more for the privledge.
I remember when TSN showed up and wondering how they could find enough content for one all-sports channel. Now we have TSN 1/2, SN A/C/W/P/1, Raptors NBA TV, Leafs TV, Fox Sportsworld, CBS College, ESPN Classic, NHL Network, on demand (NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB), and of course French version of many of these.
Sheesh. Do we really need another one? If there was a pure Blue Jays channel (reruns of old games, the old reviews of a season that used to come out, Jays Talk, etc.) I'd probably subscribe ($2 a month) but otherwise this is just nuts.
Sheesh. Do we really need another one? If there was a pure Blue Jays channel (reruns of old games, the old reviews of a season that used to come out, Jays Talk, etc.) I'd probably subscribe ($2 a month) but otherwise this is just nuts.
I find it odd that Bob McCown's program is only available on Sportsnet East. Other than Newfoundland getting mentioned periodically on his show, there isn't much eastern content.
I guess this is heresy, but I'm not at all surprised if Rogers tries to make some money off of owning the Jays. Sportsnet One is free to those of us with Rogers digital cable. When there's a package change required from basic cable to watch all of the games, I'll pay it.
If you have Bell Expressvu, and don't want to pay to go to the Rogers Centre, it'll be harder to see a game. In that event, it seems one can either request one's carrier to pick up Sportsnet One, switch to Rogers, or get angry because Rogers isn't giving away its product for free.
If you have Bell Expressvu, and don't want to pay to go to the Rogers Centre, it'll be harder to see a game. In that event, it seems one can either request one's carrier to pick up Sportsnet One, switch to Rogers, or get angry because Rogers isn't giving away its product for free.
Certainly harder for us out west.... that 3000 mile commute is a bugger and we don't even have a choice of getting rogers cable if we wanted it, not that I do.
Am I the only one that has decided that cable is only going to be 'x' % of my expenses and I'm not upgrading to digital? Does everyone have digital cable? I'm a Rogers customer and I can't get this channel and I really don't have any interest in upgrading. If I'm going to go that route, I'm going with an internet based solution that actually let's me pick what content I want.
99% of content on TV is so-so. Not sure why my kids need Treehouse in digital.
Thanks, going back to being a crusty old man here.
99% of content on TV is so-so. Not sure why my kids need Treehouse in digital.
Thanks, going back to being a crusty old man here.
As an Expressvu customer, it's clear to me that this move is designed to give Rogers more money from their competitors. Or to tempt me to become a Rogers customer. Instead, it just makes me less likely to even think of watching the game. I have the Extra Innings package, and would much rather have watched Giants-Padres.
And if they're attempting to get people to come to the games, they might want to stop classifying games against Tampa Bay in September as "premium." Less than 18,000 came to Saturday's game... what premium am I paying, exactly?
And if they're attempting to get people to come to the games, they might want to stop classifying games against Tampa Bay in September as "premium." Less than 18,000 came to Saturday's game... what premium am I paying, exactly?
If you have Bell Expressvu, and don't want to pay to go to the Rogers
Centre, it'll be harder to see a game. In that event, it seems one can
either request one's carrier to pick up Sportsnet One, switch to Rogers,
or get angry because Rogers isn't giving away its product for free.
I already pay for the four Rogers Sportsnet regional channels, so I most certainly wasn't getting Rogers' product for free previously. By moving the Blue Jays to Sportsnet One, Rogers is merely stretching its summer programming across five channels rather than four. Since Sportsnet doesn't really have much else to air during the summer months, the four regional channels have been left with other baseball games and an eclectic hodgepodge of taped programming. These are not things that I have much interest in watching.
I have no objection to Rogers making money. After all, the Blue Jays are a business. However, I want value for my money and Sportsnet One does not provide that. As a consumer I am choosing to voice my displeasure with my wallet.
I already pay for the four Rogers Sportsnet regional channels, so I most certainly wasn't getting Rogers' product for free previously. By moving the Blue Jays to Sportsnet One, Rogers is merely stretching its summer programming across five channels rather than four. Since Sportsnet doesn't really have much else to air during the summer months, the four regional channels have been left with other baseball games and an eclectic hodgepodge of taped programming. These are not things that I have much interest in watching.
I have no objection to Rogers making money. After all, the Blue Jays are a business. However, I want value for my money and Sportsnet One does not provide that. As a consumer I am choosing to voice my displeasure with my wallet.
James, no one requires you to switch from Bell to Rogers. Similarly, no one requires Rogers to give its product to Bell Expressvu customers at the same rate that is does its own. I'm fairly sure that Rogers' view is that if the Blue Jays aren't important enough to you to either pressure Bell to pick up Sportsnet One as I believe Bell did TSN2, or else switch to Rogers, then your patronage is something they can let go. But I don't really think it's grounds to complain because Rogers doesn't want to give their product for free to their competitors' customers.
Similarly, as to basic digital, I believe it's now the basic package for new customers at 30 bucks a month. I don't know how much cheaper older customers get pre-digital cable for, but it can't be that much less. https://www.rogers.com/web/link/ptvBrowsePackagesFlowBegin?forwardTo=landing
My local pub has Bell Expressvu and isn't getting the Sportsnet One games. They've got a choice of foregoing much of the Blue Jays programming next summer or switching to Rogers if Bell doesn't pick up Sportsnet One. If they leave it as is, I won't be going there much next summer to watch the game. But I won't blame Rogers for it.
There is a belief among some that Rogers is mystically making and concealing fistfuls of dollars on Blue Jay broadcasts which are filled with their own ads, TD Bank's and few others. That's not a belief shared by Rogers' shareholders who pressure the corp. to dump the Blue Jays as a very bad investment. If Rogers can use the Jays to launch a new station I don't begrudge them that at all, anymore than I would begrudge paying two dollars a month more to switch to digital cable so that I could watch the games.
Similarly, as to basic digital, I believe it's now the basic package for new customers at 30 bucks a month. I don't know how much cheaper older customers get pre-digital cable for, but it can't be that much less. https://www.rogers.com/web/link/ptvBrowsePackagesFlowBegin?forwardTo=landing
My local pub has Bell Expressvu and isn't getting the Sportsnet One games. They've got a choice of foregoing much of the Blue Jays programming next summer or switching to Rogers if Bell doesn't pick up Sportsnet One. If they leave it as is, I won't be going there much next summer to watch the game. But I won't blame Rogers for it.
There is a belief among some that Rogers is mystically making and concealing fistfuls of dollars on Blue Jay broadcasts which are filled with their own ads, TD Bank's and few others. That's not a belief shared by Rogers' shareholders who pressure the corp. to dump the Blue Jays as a very bad investment. If Rogers can use the Jays to launch a new station I don't begrudge them that at all, anymore than I would begrudge paying two dollars a month more to switch to digital cable so that I could watch the games.
Agreed, that I'm not required to switch. Would you agree that I can feel mildly perturbed if I get the MLB Extra Innings package, and can choose to watch any of 14 games on a given night, the one exception being the local nine? All of the little things that this company does to turn people away from the product are just mind-boggling.
Jay Sartori was hired as an assistant GM to AA, presumably to assist with contractual issues.
The - it's not Rogers' fault thing - would work for me if we actually had the choice of subscribing for Rogers cable out here in BC. Here in BC we have the joy of having paid for the Rogers channels on the presumption of getting the Jays games that they promised at the beginning of the year without having the choice of switching if we are unhappy with our cable service provider. As a customer service organization Rogers is rivalling only Telus as the worst one in Canada.
My issue with Sportsnet One has been the execution. It should have been done during a better time to get picked up. It depends what the other programming for it will be, but if one of your major products offered are Jays broadcasts then why kill the ratings for 20-30 games to end the year? It only lessens negotiating leverage with the other providers. As for the merit of a specialty channel carrying Jays games, it's the way teams are going and I wouldn't expect Rogers to do any different. Don't forget, though, there were struggles getting the YES network carried at first, too.
I do have an irrational hope that this will lead to an in-market MLB.tv package, like the Padres and Yankees. The proxy hunt has grown more difficult...
I do have an irrational hope that this will lead to an in-market MLB.tv package, like the Padres and Yankees. The proxy hunt has grown more difficult...
I think they said on the broadcast last night that Kyle Drabek will be making his first career start in the same town that his dad made his last career start. Anybody else hear that?
And I thought Matusz was to start last night, did he pitch the first inning?
Matusz was hit in the pitching arm by a liner from Escobar. He finished the inning but was removed after the 1st as a precaution I assume. Matusz was topping out at 90 in the 1st inning. For some reason I thought he was a hard thrower considering where he was drafted and being touted as a #1 starter type.
I think they said on the broadcast last night that Kyle Drabek will be making his first career start in the same town that his dad made his last career start. Anybody else hear that?
Second to last start. Doug Drabek's final start was in Seattle, and his last major league appearance was in Boston.
Second to last start. Doug Drabek's final start was in Seattle, and his last major league appearance was in Boston.
In an article on The Star today, the following note appeared:
At least Rogers is listening to some of the internet chatter. (More accurately, there are rumours that Rogers is listening...)
"Drabek will make his major league debut Wednesday - a game scheduled on the digital Sportsnet-1 channel, something many Jays fans are without - but there was talk Monday in Baltimore that Rogers is considering pulling that game back to the more fan friendly Sportsnet."
At least Rogers is listening to some of the internet chatter. (More accurately, there are rumours that Rogers is listening...)
I think a better way for them to put it is Drabek is starting against the team his dad last pitched for.
Boy, forgot how long Drabek stuck around with a sub-100 ERA+. 4 seasons with ERA+'s of 82-85-77-62 after a 140 season in 1994 (All-Star and 4th in Cy Young voting that year). Pre-strike he was 120-94 3.17 ERA 116 ERA+. Post-strike he was 35-40 5.40 ERA 77 ERA+. Ugh. His best ERA post-strike was worse than his worst pre-strike. Phew. He did hit the magic 32 (age when decline normally becomes clear) in 1995 but still that is just amazing. One wonders what he was doing during the strike time - was he a key figure in the union thus was drained emotionally by it maybe?
Boy, forgot how long Drabek stuck around with a sub-100 ERA+. 4 seasons with ERA+'s of 82-85-77-62 after a 140 season in 1994 (All-Star and 4th in Cy Young voting that year). Pre-strike he was 120-94 3.17 ERA 116 ERA+. Post-strike he was 35-40 5.40 ERA 77 ERA+. Ugh. His best ERA post-strike was worse than his worst pre-strike. Phew. He did hit the magic 32 (age when decline normally becomes clear) in 1995 but still that is just amazing. One wonders what he was doing during the strike time - was he a key figure in the union thus was drained emotionally by it maybe?
Interesting fact about the senior Drabek - originally drafted in the 4th round, didn't sign, then was drafted in the 11th round 3 years later when he did finally sign. Might help explain Kyle signing out of high school (although he was a 1st rounder - Kyle was the compensation to the Phillies for losing Billy Wagner). He was involved in two lopsided trades before he established himself. First sent with others to the Yankees in exchange for Roy Smalley (hit 170/285/289 in 1/2 a season before being traded in a dump trade), then traded by the Yankees 2 years later [with other players] after a solid rookie campaign (100 ERA+ over 131 2/3 IP at age 23) for Pat Clements (poor reliever), Cecilio Guante (mediocre reliever) and Rick Rhoden (veteran who had 1 good year and 2 poor ones left in the tank, now remembered for being used as the DH in one of Billy Martin's last games).
A reminder why it is dangerous to trade young pitchers, especially for 'proven' players. One wonders how AA will handle it this winter - hopefully better than the White Sox & Yankees did.
Another interesting factoid as Drabek makes his first start - the class of 2006 (first round & supplemental) has 35.3 WAR already with 23 out of 44 reaching the majors. The Jays pick was Travis Snider (0.1 WAR) with the bulk of the WAR coming from Tim Lincecum (15) and Evan Longoria (10.4) neither of whom reached the Jays 14th round pick. Other notables - Brandon Morrow (1.9, picked 5th), Joba Chamberlain (4.3, 41st overall). 9 pitchers from that round have 10+ wins already vs 5 hitters with 10+ HR. Quite a nice looking draft year with 3 members of that first round being in the majors with the Jays right now.
For comparison, 2005 has a net 66 WAR, 2004 50.1, 2003 95.1 (Hill & Markakis tied for #1 at 15.1 WAR), while 2002 is up to 157.7 (Greinke at 20 leads, Jays pick Russ Adams is at -1.1 [yes, negative]). Guys the Jays skipped in 2002 were high school pitchers Kazmir, Cain, and Hamels. Sigh.
A reminder why it is dangerous to trade young pitchers, especially for 'proven' players. One wonders how AA will handle it this winter - hopefully better than the White Sox & Yankees did.
Another interesting factoid as Drabek makes his first start - the class of 2006 (first round & supplemental) has 35.3 WAR already with 23 out of 44 reaching the majors. The Jays pick was Travis Snider (0.1 WAR) with the bulk of the WAR coming from Tim Lincecum (15) and Evan Longoria (10.4) neither of whom reached the Jays 14th round pick. Other notables - Brandon Morrow (1.9, picked 5th), Joba Chamberlain (4.3, 41st overall). 9 pitchers from that round have 10+ wins already vs 5 hitters with 10+ HR. Quite a nice looking draft year with 3 members of that first round being in the majors with the Jays right now.
For comparison, 2005 has a net 66 WAR, 2004 50.1, 2003 95.1 (Hill & Markakis tied for #1 at 15.1 WAR), while 2002 is up to 157.7 (Greinke at 20 leads, Jays pick Russ Adams is at -1.1 [yes, negative]). Guys the Jays skipped in 2002 were high school pitchers Kazmir, Cain, and Hamels. Sigh.
Dang, just noticed those WAR figures were pre-2010 (Lincecum is up to 18 now for example).
Doug Drabek's first major league start was in Baltimore when he was pitching for the Yankees. He had pitched in four games in relief before that.
So Kyle Drabek is making his first start in the same city as his dad made his first start.
Doug Drabek was signed by the Orioles in the 1997-98 offseason when Pat Gillick went a bit crazy on the free agent market. How about these signings:
Player - 1997 Season
Doug Drabek - ERA+ of 77 with White Sox
Norm Charlton - ERA+ of 62 with Mariners
Joe Carter - OPS+ of 77 with Blue Jays
Ozzie Guillen - OPS+ of 62 with White Sox
Those four guys were signed for a total of $5.9 million in 1998 according to Baseball Reference. While that wasn't a huge amount of money even back then, it was money that was completely wasted. I'm not quite sure what Gillick was thinking.
Player - 1997 Season
Doug Drabek - ERA+ of 77 with White Sox
Norm Charlton - ERA+ of 62 with Mariners
Joe Carter - OPS+ of 77 with Blue Jays
Ozzie Guillen - OPS+ of 62 with White Sox
Those four guys were signed for a total of $5.9 million in 1998 according to Baseball Reference. While that wasn't a huge amount of money even back then, it was money that was completely wasted. I'm not quite sure what Gillick was thinking.
Wow, what happened to Gillick the winter of 97/98? My first thought is the mess with Davy Johnson being fired and Ray Miller taking over. Under Johnson the Orioles made the playoffs 2 years in a row (and he wanted to come here...grr...stupid stupid Ash creature). Then iirc the Orioles owner got mad about losing in the first round and forced the situation. It seems Gillick then went silly and left the Orioles with a regular lineup that had no one under 30 and just 2 sub-30's getting over 40 AB's. Of the 8 guys with 5+ starts we see just two under 30 (one was 29, the other a 21 year old Sidney Ponson). Ex-Jays getting a nice retirement package included Joe Carter, Jimmy Key, and Juan Guzman. Roberto Alomar was still a good player then but left after the season to go to Cleveland for his final good 3 years (2 times in the top 5 for MVP voting).
As most would guess, that was the end for Pat Gillick in Baltimore - from 98 wins to 79 kind of does that. What is sad is those 79 wins are the high water mark for the Orioles since then. Lets hope it stays that way :)
As most would guess, that was the end for Pat Gillick in Baltimore - from 98 wins to 79 kind of does that. What is sad is those 79 wins are the high water mark for the Orioles since then. Lets hope it stays that way :)
It's funny. Drabek was the ace of a division-winning club. His ERA+ during his Pittsburgh years were 106, 110, 120, 131, 118, and 124. He was healthy all six years, and that combined with the development (these two are undoubtedly related) was the key. That, and the fact that there was a pretty good left-fielder on the club.
Anyways, you can look at the Jay starting pitchers and see four or five who might have a Drabek-like first six years. Two would be good.
Anyways, you can look at the Jay starting pitchers and see four or five who might have a Drabek-like first six years. Two would be good.
James, no one requires you to switch from Bell to Rogers. Similarly, no
one requires Rogers to give its product to Bell Expressvu customers at
the same rate that is does its own. I'm fairly sure that Rogers' view is
that if the Blue Jays aren't important enough to you to either pressure
Bell to pick up Sportsnet One as I believe Bell did TSN2, or else
switch to Rogers, then your patronage is something they can let go. But I
don't really think it's grounds to complain because Rogers doesn't want
to give their product for free to their competitors' customers.
I somehow doubt Rogers view is that they don't want people to watch the team or spend money on Rogers products. The issue here is in no way about Rogers giving their product for "free" to their competitors or their customers. They want more money for a shitty channel that duplicates 99% of what they already show. For crying out loud, I think there are more Sportsnets now than ESPNs, and ESPN shows way more and different stuff.
A TV schedule came out at the beginning of the year which listed all the Jays games, and none of them were on Sportsnet 1. The channel had been given a license by the CRTC at this point but didn't have a launch date. I know, at least personally, I decided to pay for Sportsnet because they were showing the Jays games - there is really no other content on Rogers I watch other than baseball (although I believe they have the Raptors this year). They show a ton of poker, gambling, radio simulcasts, etc. So in the middle of the year, when they actually decided to put out the new channel, they decided to move a bunch of content to this new channel, that I, as a Bell customer, have no ability to acquire. The only way for me to get the channel apparently is to complain to my cable provider. I have two problems with this (well three really.) 1. I have paid for 4 Sportsnet channels, which essentially never show more than 2 different live sporting events at a time already, and I feel I am being defrauded. 2. Rogers is using viewers as pawns in a chess match against other providers, and the viewers suffer. 3. I already pay for 4 channels that have 2 channels (barely) worth of content, and now I'm supposed to pay for a 5th.
The whole thing is incredibly incredibly cynical. If you look at the content that's actually been on the various Sportsnets for the past month its pitiful. Unless it gets changed, Kyle Drabek's debut on Sportsnet 1 tomorrow will go head to head with these other fine Sportsnet programs: Premier League World, MMA Connected, UFC Fight Night, Mobli One: The Grid, World Cup of Pool, This Week in Baseball, and EPL Review. On Thursday, with the Jays having a day off, I can see 4 different baseball games across the 5 Sportsnets. I think this channel already exists, its called Extra Innings, except I get to choose which games I want. On Friday Sportsnet 1 shows Rays-Angels against the Jays on the 4 other Sportsnets. People in Tampa don't even watch the Rays play. On Saturday when 80% of the country or whatever it is doesn't even have the option of watching the Jays play on Sportsnet 1, you instead watch, across all 4 sportnets: TWIB, Saturday Night Poker, 2010 Monster Energy Motocross, Mobil One: The Grid, Premier League Soccer Encore, UEFA Magazie, US Open 9 Ball, and a Toronto FC game (that one's at least legit). On Sunday afternoon when the next Jays game is on Sportsnet 1, you can literally watch all of the same Saturday night programs repeated from 1-4. Thats right, you get to see repeats of crap you would never have watched in the first place. When the 4 Sportsnets are showing football on Sunday afternoon, Sportsnet 1 will be showing darts. Oh, and in primetime on Sunday on 5 different Sportsnets you have the choice of beach volleyball or a movie. TSN has, on its two channels, Sunday Night Football and Sunday Night Baseball. But you can pay for 5 channels and watch Youngblood (oh and Motocross is repeated for the 3rd time in 24 hours also.)
Maybe things will be different in the fall when there is hockey and basketball, but in the interim Rogers Sportsnet 1 is basically a giant middle finger to baseball and all sports fans.
I somehow doubt Rogers view is that they don't want people to watch the team or spend money on Rogers products. The issue here is in no way about Rogers giving their product for "free" to their competitors or their customers. They want more money for a shitty channel that duplicates 99% of what they already show. For crying out loud, I think there are more Sportsnets now than ESPNs, and ESPN shows way more and different stuff.
A TV schedule came out at the beginning of the year which listed all the Jays games, and none of them were on Sportsnet 1. The channel had been given a license by the CRTC at this point but didn't have a launch date. I know, at least personally, I decided to pay for Sportsnet because they were showing the Jays games - there is really no other content on Rogers I watch other than baseball (although I believe they have the Raptors this year). They show a ton of poker, gambling, radio simulcasts, etc. So in the middle of the year, when they actually decided to put out the new channel, they decided to move a bunch of content to this new channel, that I, as a Bell customer, have no ability to acquire. The only way for me to get the channel apparently is to complain to my cable provider. I have two problems with this (well three really.) 1. I have paid for 4 Sportsnet channels, which essentially never show more than 2 different live sporting events at a time already, and I feel I am being defrauded. 2. Rogers is using viewers as pawns in a chess match against other providers, and the viewers suffer. 3. I already pay for 4 channels that have 2 channels (barely) worth of content, and now I'm supposed to pay for a 5th.
The whole thing is incredibly incredibly cynical. If you look at the content that's actually been on the various Sportsnets for the past month its pitiful. Unless it gets changed, Kyle Drabek's debut on Sportsnet 1 tomorrow will go head to head with these other fine Sportsnet programs: Premier League World, MMA Connected, UFC Fight Night, Mobli One: The Grid, World Cup of Pool, This Week in Baseball, and EPL Review. On Thursday, with the Jays having a day off, I can see 4 different baseball games across the 5 Sportsnets. I think this channel already exists, its called Extra Innings, except I get to choose which games I want. On Friday Sportsnet 1 shows Rays-Angels against the Jays on the 4 other Sportsnets. People in Tampa don't even watch the Rays play. On Saturday when 80% of the country or whatever it is doesn't even have the option of watching the Jays play on Sportsnet 1, you instead watch, across all 4 sportnets: TWIB, Saturday Night Poker, 2010 Monster Energy Motocross, Mobil One: The Grid, Premier League Soccer Encore, UEFA Magazie, US Open 9 Ball, and a Toronto FC game (that one's at least legit). On Sunday afternoon when the next Jays game is on Sportsnet 1, you can literally watch all of the same Saturday night programs repeated from 1-4. Thats right, you get to see repeats of crap you would never have watched in the first place. When the 4 Sportsnets are showing football on Sunday afternoon, Sportsnet 1 will be showing darts. Oh, and in primetime on Sunday on 5 different Sportsnets you have the choice of beach volleyball or a movie. TSN has, on its two channels, Sunday Night Football and Sunday Night Baseball. But you can pay for 5 channels and watch Youngblood (oh and Motocross is repeated for the 3rd time in 24 hours also.)
Maybe things will be different in the fall when there is hockey and basketball, but in the interim Rogers Sportsnet 1 is basically a giant middle finger to baseball and all sports fans.
I am officially a former Rogers Wireless customer, thanks to the Sportsnet One decision. I am even making this post from my new smartphone from Bell. It's not the ideal way to post on this site, but it is rather satisfying. Farewell, Rogers.
Well said, Anders!!! You put into words much better than I could have but my feelings exactly!
"I am officially a former Rogers Wireless customer, thanks to the Sportsnet One decision. I am even making this post from my new smartphone from Bell. It's not the ideal way to post on this site, but it is rather satisfying. Farewell, Rogers."
My wife is a former Rogers Wireless customer and due to several reasons was willing to pay a pretty hefty penalty to get out of her Rogers contract. When SNET-1 started up and the shaft was apparently getting extended to sportsfans I started feeling alot better about her decision :)
My wife is a former Rogers Wireless customer and due to several reasons was willing to pay a pretty hefty penalty to get out of her Rogers contract. When SNET-1 started up and the shaft was apparently getting extended to sportsfans I started feeling alot better about her decision :)
I guess this is a bad time to say I am enjoying watching the Vuelta a Espana (Cycling) on Sportsnet 1. Coverage of that race is never available in Canada.
(But that will be over on Sunday)
You just do whatever you have to do to maintain your access, Gerry.
But don't gloat!