tj_

I completely hate the idea of Aybar leading off. I don't mind Trout at number 2, but prefer him leading off.

Howie and Trumbo. Not a lot of depth there. Aybar has played a few games out there.

Oh really? Then how come at least one current player used Hatcher as a private hitting coach this past offseason?

I'm surprised they don't have some kind of insurance.

Michael Eaves had some sort of emergency. Hopefully he's okay. https://twitter.com/michaeleaves/status/322529253541441536

Today's game is MLB.TV free game of the day, which apparently isn't blacked out here. Watching a bit of the Oakland braodcast, seems as if they think Bourjos should lead off.

Regarding your "plus" statement, are you kidding me? In what universe is Callaspo a fast runner?

What a bizarre lineup. Trout and Callaspo aren't the problems. But okay, let's go with it.

Oh come on, it's not like he's as bad as Brad Fullmer was. Trumbo is an average defender at first base. I don't think he's any worse than Pujols at Albert's stage of his career.

Trumbo has had some great at bats this year, but some really shaky ones too. At the end of last season, he was consistently terrible. This season, so far, he's been inconsistent, even within individual games. I'm not ready to throw Mark under the bus.

Because he isn't on the DL at this point.

Langston sticking around for Angel Talk tonight.

MLB Network has regional coverage. You either get one game or the other. The San Diego market must have been designated whatever the other game is... Astros @ Mariners. Is Astros @ Mariners blacked out too?

Why did the Angels Live set move out of the stadium? Do they have anything behind the rocks now?

I'm guessing the free pizza is the equivalent of about 7 bucks.

The strange part is that he played LF in late innings quite frequently last season with Bourjos replacing Trumbo defensively. I don't know why folks like John Kruk and the OP here are surprised to see Trout in LF.

Kruk also said that Trout needs to play CF.

Fox, etc would be crazy to let people watch their feeds in market through MLB for $10/mo or whatever. Last year, the Angels were the 2nd least viewed team in market ----> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/10/01/Media/MLB-RSNs.aspx If those of us who watch the Angels were the only ones paying for these broadcasts, we would be paying way more than $10/mo. How is FOX going to recoup that 9 figure investment? You won't be able to steal a feed if the local stations can't even afford to produce the game. Out of market broadcasts don't have much $$ value, which is why mlb.tv packages can be purchased so inexpensively. Fox Sports West doesn't get subscriber $$ when you have no cable and watch through MLB.TV. if Fox Sports West currently costs a cable/sat/telco company $3/month per subscriber and only 1% of the subscriber base watches, then for FSW to get the equivalent amount of money from the people watching via a pay per view/ a la carte type model, then they would basically need to charge $300 per month to equal their current revenue. Nobody is going to pay that, FSW can't afford to pay the Angels their license fee, Angels can't afford to pay their players. Then what? You will never see major in-market live sports distributed in this way because it is the only programming immune to DVR and fast forwarding. If peopel who never watched ESPN, FSN etc weren't subsidizing those of us who do pay for television, it would cost fans wayyyyy more very easily. This is also why ESPN moved a lot of the TV simulcasted programming from ESPN3 to WatchESPN, because for a couple years people could just buy cheap internet packages and watch stuff on ESPN3 for free. I think it would be good if FSN had a similar WatchFSN type thing where you could watch the local streams online in market if you had a qualifying tv package. That would make sense. Local games on basic MLB.TV, does not make so much sense. MLB has nothing to do with it. FSW has local rights.

Hmm, I went to am830.net to listen to the postgame and it has Ducks Hockey.

June 7, 2005: Drafted by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the 35th round of the 2005 amateur draft, but did not sign. Would have been nice if he signed.

Why didn't he moved his family out here? The boos were crazy excessive though. The FOX broadcasters suggested it was just over his 'football town' comment.

I don't understand how you would "occasionally" get games from the Bay Area. The DirecTV RSN locator states that Las Vegas receives CSN CA and CSN BA. It also says that Las Vegas receives Fox Sports San Diego which has all of the Padres telecasts. For the zip code I checked, Dbacks on FS AZ can be had with sports pack - all of these teams should then be blacked out on MLB EI, but you are saying you can get the Padres and Dbacks through MLB EI, which doesn't make sense if they claim the territory. I checked several zip codes. The only variances I could see is that some zip codes had the Coyotes included in FSN AZ and some did not. If you're not on DirecTV, it's possible that other cable, sat and telco competitors don't want to pay to show all those RSN's in your area. DirecTV subscribers in Las Vegas with Choice or above on all the zip codes that I checked receive FS West, Prime Ticket, Time Warner Cable Sports Net (the Lakers network), Fox Sports San Diego, CSN Bay Area and CSN California. All five baseball teams were listed and all four basketball teams were listed as well, but only the Kings and Ducks for hockey. If the Angels are playing the Red Sox on NESN, that doesn't matter because you can see the FS West telecast as the Angels air all games that are not televised by ESPN or FOX on Fox Sports West. There hasn't been an OTA Angels telecast since 2011. It's certainly possible that DirecTV's website is outdated, but according to their marketing materials, you should be getting all the local RSN broadcasts of all five CA baseball teams with Choice package and above. So what I'm saying is that if MLB made Las Vegas a territory with no local team, you would then have to buy MLB EI or MLB.TV to watch these teams instead of just a basic satellite tv package that includes the RSN with game coverage. Now if you only watch baseball, maybe it's less $$ to only buy mlb.tv and no cable or satellite package, but you'd miss out on sunday night baseball and the postseason among other things.

Do you want to kill the golden goose? Do you not realize how good you have it compared to those of us in southern California? a basic choice package on directv gives you five MLB teams, four NBA teams, three NHL teams and if you add sports pack, you get dbacks games on fsn az (no suns or coyotes). sports fans in vegas have a ton of local teams and wouldn't need a package like MLB EI unless they were specifically a fan of a team that doesnt claim the territory a Giants fan in Vegas wouldn't see the 15 or so OTA giants games, but 1/2 of those are being televised on the Padres or Dodgers RSN anyway. Dodger fans miss out on OTA dodger games, but next year Dodgers are going RSN only. those in vegas get way more sports value for the same price without the need for paying for an out of market package. Adding the five CA baseball teams + MLB network, ESPN, ESPN2, WGN, local FOX and TBS, that's a whole lot of baseball coverage.

3/23 Angels @ Cubs on WGN