How Can I Watch the Twins Today? (And Seven Other Questions about the Twins-Bally-Comcast Clustermuck)

[Guest]

If this keeps up Cory Provos may be the first TV play by play announcer not on TV.

[USAFChief]

5 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I think it would almost have to be a St Peter / Owner board of directors level thing.

What do we know about $47m? I hadn't heard that number.

Ballys settled with Cleveland and Texas for 85% of their previous contract. Widely speculated by smart sources the Twins got roughly the same 85% of last year's ~$56M.

This was all over TD this spring.

[Unwinder]

OK, I understand why the Twins went with Bally again for one year, but what I do not understand AT ALL is, why not let Bally stream the Twins on their standalone app, just for this year? Were they unwilling to pay more for that? Then why not let them have the in-market streaming rights for free (just for the year)???? It doesn't cost the Twins any money and no one else is using those rights!!! Was Bally unwilling to stream the Twins because they're afraid of cannibalizing their cable subscriptions? I doubt it! They stream the Wild and Wolves! Did Bally lack the infrastructure to handle an influx in subscribers? Sounds like something that COULD be a problem in the parts of the season that overlap with the NBA and NHL regular seasons, but Bally has never shied away from offering a product they can't reliably deliver before! Was it just too difficult to draw up a new contract that included streaming rights??? If the Twins had wanted to, they COULD have got a deal done to provide us with a standalone streaming option for at least the same money, probably more, and chose to withhold it.

[Riverbrian]

17 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

While I like the idea of a David and Goliath type movie script ending with Liam saving the day many seem to have somehow miscast the Twins as the Goliath in their fantasy. They have always needed one lucky rock. Their one billion dollars organization is a literal Dr Evil joke in this game.

And at the risk of being that guy, "I told you so." Many, many times.

It was always going to get worse before it got better and it still might get worse yet.

And golden handcuffs? WTAF? This is the editorial bent we are discussing in that other forum.

This ain't a baseball discussion, never has been. It would do a lot of you well to start listening to the people on this forum who have been in rooms like these.

 

[Riverbrian]

23 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

For billionaires, short term money is better than long term money. Money on hand now can make so much more money for a billionaire. It's why the Bobby Bonilla contract has been laughed at for the last three decades.

If Joe Pohlad were offered 5B now but it would guarantee the game would be extinct in 15 years, or offered 15B stretched out over 15 years, he'd take the first option every time.

Jim might not have. He was by far my favorite Pohlad owner thus far. But that's probably why he's no longer in charge. They voted him off the island.

I just wonder how much of drop in the bucket this short term money amounts to.  

[USAFChief]

At the heart of this issue lies ?50? percent of TD readers.

Those of you who are "cable cutters" torpedoed the sports-on-cable model. You did so knowingly, and deliberately, so it's a little hypocritical to be up in arms now when the torpedoed model sinks. 

 

[Riverbrian]

44 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I think it would almost have to be a St Peter / Owner board of directors level thing.

What do we know about $47m? I hadn't heard that number.

Reported estimates.

Accuracy? No Idea.

Anything reported these days has a strong risk of inaccuracy.  

[Vanimal46]

31 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I'm not really sure, but "TV contract" falls under Dave St Peter, no?

That’s what I’m wondering. Whoever was responsible on the Twins side knew this was a possibility, perhaps a high likelihood of happening. And they took the short term cash anyway. 

Someone in the C level at 1 Twins Way doesn’t have a forward thinking mindset. 

[USAFChief]

7 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

That’s what I’m wondering. Whoever was responsible on the Twins side knew this was a possibility, perhaps a high likelihood of happening. And they took the short term cash anyway. 

Someone in the C level at 1 Twins Way doesn’t have a forward thinking mindset. 

I think perhaps "streaming" isn't nearly the cash cow cable was.

Not long ago, if you wanted good TV service, you had cable, or satellite. Viewership was concentrated on a couple options.

 Cable and/or satellite had enough subscribers To be able to pay a Ballys enough to make it profitable for everyone.

Now, with 300,000 streaming options, nobody has the viewership level to pay a Ballys enough. Including cable/satellite. 

Ballys isn't producing those Twins broadcasts for free.

 

 

[Riverbrian]

Just now, Vanimal46 said:

That’s what I’m wondering. Whoever was responsible on the Twins side knew this was a possibility, perhaps a high likelihood of happening. And they took the short term cash anyway. 

Someone in the C level at 1 Twins Way doesn’t have a forward thinking mindset. 

Most likely St. Peter as Team President but who knows.

It could have been the Director of Short Term Media Deals" who has an office right next to the Community Engagement Coordinator. 

I always go straight to the people who hire the people.

To my knowledge... Joe Pohlad currently sits at the top as the executive chair. 

So... I'm looking straight at Joe until I hear otherwise.   

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I think perhaps "streaming" isn't nearly the cash cow cable was.

Not long ago, if you wanted good TV service, you had cable, or satellite. Viewership was concentrated on a couple options.

 Cable and/or satellite had enough subscribers To be able to pay a Ballys enough to make it profitable for everyone.

Now, with 300,000 streaming options, nobody has the viewership level to pay a Ballys enough. Including cable/satellite. 

Ballys isn't producing those Twins broadcasts for free.

 

 

Lots of Monetization Complication. 

Which would be a great song title for those new artists the kids enjoy these days who are trying to figure out how to make a buck in the music business. 

[Jocko87]

7 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I think perhaps "streaming" isn't nearly the cash cow cable was.

Not long ago, if you wanted good TV service, you had cable, or satellite. Viewership was concentrated on a couple options.

 Cable and/or satellite had enough subscribers To be able to pay a Ballys enough to make it profitable for everyone.

Now, with 300,000 streaming options, nobody has the viewership level to pay a Ballys enough. Including cable/satellite. 

Ballys isn't producing those Twins broadcasts for free.

 

 

Yup, ESPN was never really "earning" their $9 per cable subscription fee as many business sins can be hidden in the bundle.  They earned with their negotiating skills rather than product. 

Less reported here but very related, ESPN trying to get out of the MLB baseball marketplace is very ominous.  Far more ominous than today's news.  The money isn't there and the Twins are in the rip tide.

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Yup, ESPN was never really "earning" their $9 per cable subscription fee as many business sins can be hidden in the bundle.  They earned with their negotiating skills rather than product. 

Less reported here but very related, ESPN trying to get out of the MLB baseball marketplace is very ominous.  Far more ominous than today's news.  The money isn't there and the Twins are in the rip tide.

In earlier post... you said it was going to get worse before it gets better. 

Yep... 1,000%

They have kept themselves tied to a sinking ship. Once you climb out of that sinking ship they are in the water. 

But... they should know by now... that they have to get off that ship. 

Get on that deserted Island and start making it habitable. They won't be able to wash clothes until the professor builds that thing and Gilligan starts peddling. 

 

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

At the heart of this issue lies ?50? percent of TD readers.

Those of you who are "cable cutters" torpedoed the sports-on-cable model. You did so knowingly, and deliberately, so it's a little hypocritical to be up in arms now when the torpedoed model sinks. 

 

That seems pretty unfair. I couldn't justify paying for both cable AND the streaming services that my wife and kids wanted. Nobody else in my house will watch a second of sports unless Taylor Swift pops on screen for five seconds. Paying cable $120/month just to watch the Twins? Terribly sorry, please accept my apology for choosing the option that 4/5ths of my family wanted but the incompetent MLB owners are unable to reconcile.

[Vanimal46]

17 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I think perhaps "streaming" isn't nearly the cash cow cable was.

Not long ago, if you wanted good TV service, you had cable, or satellite. Viewership was concentrated on a couple options.

 Cable and/or satellite had enough subscribers To be able to pay a Ballys enough to make it profitable for everyone.

Now, with 300,000 streaming options, nobody has the viewership level to pay a Ballys enough. Including cable/satellite. 

Ballys isn't producing those Twins broadcasts for free.

 

 

Agreed. MLB would likely get the most bang for their buck making MLB.tv their exclusive platform for TV broadcasts and forgo negotiations with the 300,000 other streaming services. 

All of this is a mess right now. If the music industry can figure out the transition from physical CDs to streaming, so can sports media. 

[Jocko87]

3 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

In earlier post... you said it was going to get worse before it gets better. 

Yep... 1,000%

They have kept themselves tied to a sinking ship. Once you climb out of that sinking ship they are in the water. 

But... they should know by now... that they have to get off that ship. 

Get on that deserted Island and start making it habitable. They won't be able to wash clothes until the professor builds that thing and Gilligan starts peddling. 

 

It's the same ship that took them 98% of the way to the moon. The didn't tie themselves to it when it was sinking.  The preseason deal was more like climbing on the door in Titanic. 

[Jocko87]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

Agreed. MLB would likely get the most bang for their buck making MLB.tv their exclusive platform for TV broadcasts and forgo negotiations with the 300,000 other streaming services. 

All of this is a mess right now. If the music industry can figure out the transition from physical CDs to streaming, so can sports media. 

The infrastructure that was in place for tracking plays for royalties gave the music industry a huge head start.  It's also a much smaller community, similar money but many less cooks in the kitchen.  

[SockNet]

Listen on AM 830 or the Audicy App. Radio has been my primary form of game Twins game consumption for years.

Chris Attaberry is great and I've alsways preferred him to Provis so I'm enjoing the full time change.

Provis and Gladden had a fun relationship to listen to but Attaberry is far better at call actual game action and is more colorful, IMO. I remember listening ot him call an inning solo once a few years back (Gladden must have been taking a dump or something) and it was amazing.

[chpettit19]

50 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

At the heart of this issue lies ?50? percent of TD readers.

Those of you who are "cable cutters" torpedoed the sports-on-cable model. You did so knowingly, and deliberately, so it's a little hypocritical to be up in arms now when the torpedoed model sinks. 

 

Us "cable cutters" didn't force the Twins to sign up for another year on the torpedoed ship. I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out that the Twins chose to take a ride on a ship everyone knows is sinking because they cared more about a singular pay day than growing their fanbase. 

[August J Gloop]

1 hour ago, Unwinder said:

OK, I understand why the Twins went with Bally again for one year, but what I do not understand AT ALL is, why not let Bally stream the Twins on their standalone app, just for this year? Were they unwilling to pay more for that? Then why not let them have the in-market streaming rights for free (just for the year)???? It doesn't cost the Twins any money and no one else is using those rights!!! Was Bally unwilling to stream the Twins because they're afraid of cannibalizing their cable subscriptions? I doubt it! They stream the Wild and Wolves! Did Bally lack the infrastructure to handle an influx in subscribers? Sounds like something that COULD be a problem in the parts of the season that overlap with the NBA and NHL regular seasons, but Bally has never shied away from offering a product they can't reliably deliver before! Was it just too difficult to draw up a new contract that included streaming rights??? If the Twins had wanted to, they COULD have got a deal done to provide us with a standalone streaming option for at least the same money, probably more, and chose to withhold it.

The NHL and NBA don't have a wildly successful competing streaming platform like mlb.tv. Stream rights are MLB collective so the Twins couldn't just give them away. Bally's probably asked for free rights or to lock in something with AMZN, so they couldn't (didn't) agree to it. It's a huge mess, but this part at least kind of makes sense.  

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, August J Gloop said:

The NHL and NBA don't have a wildly successful competing streaming platform like mlb.tv. Stream rights are MLB collective so the Twins couldn't just give them away. Bally's probably asked for free rights or to lock in something with AMZN, so they couldn't (didn't) agree to it. It's a huge mess, but this part at least kind of makes sense.  

There are other MLB teams that have signed streaming rights deals with Ballys. What's the difference? I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this all works, but I'd think if other teams have packaged their streaming rights in their Ballys deal the Twins could've done it, too.

[chpettit19]

23 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

The infrastructure that was in place for tracking plays for royalties gave the music industry a huge head start.  It's also a much smaller community, similar money but many less cooks in the kitchen.  

What infrastructure is MLB missing? Legitimate question. I don't know enough about this to have any idea. But streaming MLB games isn't a new idea, MLB.tv launched in 2002. It's been over 20 years. How long does it take to get things figured out?

[August J Gloop]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

There are other MLB teams that have signed streaming rights deals with Ballys. What's the difference? I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this all works, but I'd think if other teams have packaged their streaming rights in their Ballys deal the Twins could've done it, too.

Those teams just see the value of the stream differently (correctly?). I'm not saying I agree with the Twins being cheap on streaming, but I do understand why they didn't let Bally's get everything they wanted just to have it. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

I have offered my opinion on this subject before so I will spare everyone a repeat other than to say the Twins deserve any bad stuff that comes their way. Most irritating to me is the sanctimonious press release saying how sorry they are and that they had nothing to do with it. They might have the worst PR skills of any major corporation I’ve ever seen. 

They chose this, giving their fans the finger again. I don't know why anyone would become a Twins fan if they weren't one..... They certainly didn't deserve it. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, August J Gloop said:

Those teams just see the value of the stream differently (correctly?). I'm not saying I agree with the Twins being cheap on streaming, but I do understand why they didn't let Bally's get everything they wanted just to have it. 

Totally fair. I just think it's another shortsighted decision by the Twins. Their problem is a shrinking fanbase. They rejected the idea of fully diving into the streaming world because of the 1 year payout. I don't get why you wouldn't at least dip your toe in here and at least start the process of expanding your fan base. It shouldn't be about what Ballys wanted, it should've been about what was best for the future of the Twins. And getting their product in front of more fans is the very clear and obvious answer to that question. I don't see it as letting Ballys get everything they wanted just to have it, I see it as the Twins actively shooting themselves in the other foot after having already shot their first foot by signing up anyways. Their complete and utter rejection of streaming is mind blowing to me.

[USAFChief]

21 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Us "cable cutters" didn't force the Twins to sign up for another year on the torpedoed ship. I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out that the Twins chose to take a ride on a ship everyone knows is sinking because they cared more about a singular pay day than growing their fanbase. 

No need to get defensive. But cable cutters are absolutely, positively, 100 percent the reason the cable/satellite model is failing.

And do you not think if there was a streaming option offering to pay the Twins anything close to similar money, the Twins would have jumped at it?

And then do you not think said streaming option would have simply passed that cost onto you?

 

[August J Gloop]

7 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

They chose this, giving their fans the finger again. I don't know why anyone would become a Twins fan if they weren't one..... They certainly didn't deserve it. 

Because you don't root for the executives? 

 

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Totally fair. I just think it's another shortsighted decision by the Twins. Their problem is a shrinking fanbase. They rejected the idea of fully diving into the streaming world because of the 1 year payout. I don't get why you wouldn't at least dip your toe in here and at least start the process of expanding your fan base. It shouldn't be about what Ballys wanted, it should've been about what was best for the future of the Twins. And getting their product in front of more fans is the very clear and obvious answer to that question. I don't see it as letting Ballys get everything they wanted just to have it, I see it as the Twins actively shooting themselves in the other foot after having already shot their first foot by signing up anyways. Their complete and utter rejection of streaming is mind blowing to me.

Insanely short sighted. But doing any business with Bally's falls in the same myopic category. They were free of this mess. Yet they chose to dive right back in. 

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, USAFChief said:

No need to get defensive. But cable cutters are absolutely, positively, 100 percent the reason the cable/satellite model is failing.

And do you not think if there was a streaming option offering to pay the Twins anything close to similar money, the Twins would have jumped at it?

And then do you not think said streaming option would have simply passed that cost onto you?

 

I'd argue it's failing because the service doesn't offer value for the cost. But sure, blame the customers, not the suppliers. 

[CRF]

I don't know a damn thing about fubo, but I know FUBAR when I see it. 

[USAFChief]

I think the obvious answer is mlb.tv, with local blackouts eliminated. 

$30/mo to watch all Twins games...except the ones on Facebook, Apple, Fox..