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

[lake_guy]

On 5/1/2024 at 9:24 AM, USAFChief said:

I'd imagine Ballys will most likely declare bankruptcy again. That's a lot of dough they're not getting. 

So in a sad twist, the Twins might end up not even getting the ~$47M from Ballys they settled for.

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

 

I suspect this is the real reason they cut payroll, they knew the odds were at least 50/50 this could happen.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

The people who should be complaining are those who paid for Comcast. 

I agree with this. The Twins went out and said BSN would be carrying Twins games this summer, keep your cable. They didn't say it would only be for the month of April.

But don't blame the cord-cutters for this mess. It's entirely the fault of MLB that they have priced their product so high that I'd rather substitute other things for my entertainment. I haven't watched Twins games regularly for years and now I'm not sure if I would still want to do that. It probably helps that I grew up without access to the Twins on TV so it's more like nothing changed in that regard. There was a brief window where I could see the Twins on television and now that's a fading memory.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Agreed -- Accessibility!

Blackouts are a very simplistic symbol of the root of the problem. 

Blackouts are only necessary because nobody is going to hand you 50 million a year for the rights to broadcast your product unless those rights are exclusive. Once you grant exclusivity you are limiting accessibility and exclusivity is granted for $$$.  

They are paying for 50 million market share and audience level which determines how much they can charge advertisers and cable companies. If you are eroding that market share through other offerings...  you will be paid a lot less for the rights if paid at all. Exclusivity is a necessary evil in order to get the most money   

I don't have the how because it isn't just as simple just simply doing it. But, as @Jocko87 suggested... the clubs need to take the broadcast rights in house in order to be every where every one is on every device. 

They don't need Bally sales professionals to generate revenue for Bally. They can hire their own sales professionals to generate revenue for them.  

 

The blackout is a simplistic symbol, but its also a very powerful indicator of the forces being dealt with.  It's easy to focus on the Twins right now but very little mention of the 15 or so other teams in the same boat. 

Step back from the Twins a minute and try to visualize the contractual gymnastics that that it took to bring enough money to the table to make it make sense to make baseball invisible in Iowa.  Literally, WTF.  Then realize that's what they are trying to untangle. 

Unfortunately what Comcast is doing is what is right for their business.  That's their job.  They would all being fired for not taking notice of Bally/Diamonds failures and protecting themselves.  The Twins/MLB weren't the only groups screwed by them.

[Major League Ready]

47 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

No you didn't, but that's what the conversation between Chief and I was that you jumped into. If you didn't want a response about that you shouldn't have replied to a comment about it. You, again, jumped into a conversation about something else and forced it into the conversation you wanted to have.

If they told everyone currently paying Comcast, DirecTV, etc. that they weren't signing with Bally's at the start of the offseason those paying for those services only, or in large part, because of Twins games would've had a chance to figure out what they wanted to do for this season. But those who have Comcast because of Twins games right now can't just get out of that contract now that the Twins are no longer on that service. It's a very different situation. Sure, they could now add another $80/month to their spending to get Fubo, but that seems a little unrealistic for a team to ask their fans. Or, if they'd gotten a streaming deal in place (like they sent Provus out to tell they were going to, but don't worry I won't question their competence there) where blackouts weren't a problem none of this would've mattered.

The Twins have been losing viewership for years while they watched Ballys be available on fewer and fewer services. They didn't have a choice then because they were under contract. They had a choice this offseason and signed up for the same sinking ship. According to DSP they hope to be part of an MLB offered package next year. I hope that happens. They openly acknowledged that this deal was going to hurt their viewership this year. Because I don't assume incompetence even though you constantly say I do, I actually assume they were smart enough to know that Diamond and Comcast had their contract running out soon so they knew there was a chance even more of their fans would lose access. I would actually believe that MLB encouraged them to take this deal to help tank Bally's and hurt the bankruptcy proceedings by Diamond not being able to come to terms with Comcast if a reliable source said that was the back room dealings. I'd question the Twins being a pawn in MLB's scheme, but I'd accept it's what happened.

I don't care what other responses you have. I know your stance is, and always will be, that the business men are smart and do no wrong. But businesses go down all the time. Businesses are incompetent all the time. The Twins complained about Bally's/Diamond, promised their customers no blackouts for 2024, and suggested they were going to cut payroll in part because of their TV deal that wasn't going to pay as much but would be better for reaching their fans. They ended back with the guys they said they didn't like, still have blackouts, and cut payroll anyways. I don't care what you want to call that, but they failed. DSP said they failed. I mean he added that they "aren't tone-deaf," but he acknowledged they failed at improving their situation. Use whatever term you want. It's not automatically the right outcome just because you want to defend the business men. We aren't going to agree on this so I'm done with this conversation.

I merely wanted to point out that every customer of Comcast, DirecTV, or other carriers would have been left out had they not signed a deal with Bally's.  This is being ignored.   Very few households / families have Comcast just for Bally's so it's not as simple as you suggest.  Most people have Comcast, DirecTV, etc for a variety of programming.   Therefore, many would still have that expense and still be paying for their current services. 

BTW ... You ignored the part of my post that stated "Should we blame the customers who continue to rely upon an outdated model.  I don't think so."  

[Jocko87]

22 minutes ago, lake_guy said:

I suspect this is the real reason they cut payroll, they knew the odds were at least 50/50 this could happen.

No doubt they knew it was going to get worse.  Just spending whatever one time payment they got on a player would be borderline malpractice. 

One of the things that really bothers me about this discourse is that it is being presented like they just took the money and ran to their pockets.  Listened to the new Gleeman and the Geek this morning and the insistence that "they were a free agent!!!" really does a huge disservice to the discussion.  So far as I know, the options they said no to are not public. 

Shohei Otani was a free agent too, but was he an actual option? No.  Same principal here.

I need to know what they turned down before I judge the choice to go back to Bally's.  If you are making a judgment without that information, take a step back.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

Step back from the Twins a minute and try to visualize the contractual gymnastics that that it took to bring enough money to the table to make it make sense to make baseball invisible in Iowa.  Literally, WTF.  Then realize that's what they are trying to untangle. 

Not many realize why your use of the word "untangle" is a perfect description. I don't know if this map has been updated but a map like this exists in the "blackout" world.

 

The entire country has been claimed. If anyone thinks Oakland moving to Las Vegas was just something you decide to do and simply do with no complication. Look at the map. The Angels, The D-Backs, The Dodgers, The Padres are all laying claim to Vegas and probably seeking some compensation for the A's taking over the market. The Giants are also in the group of Teams with Vegas market share but I'm sure they are not complaining about Oakland leaving the area.

Do you want to move a team to Portland... Good Luck... The Mariners are going to scream about it. Do you want to move a team to Brookings South Dakota... Good Luck... The Twins are going to stop that from happening. 😁

[adorduan]

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Stream Fubo.

 

Also...are you a Comcast customer?

If not, what's your complaint again?

Streaming Fubo would do nothing for me. I'm in market, even though i live 250 miles away from the TC.

[USAFChief]

38 minutes ago, adorduan said:

Streaming Fubo would do nothing for me. I'm in market, even though i live 250 miles away from the TC.

You'd be watching the Twins. Fubo carries BSN. In market.

AFAIK, they're the only streaming service that does.

 

[Heiny]

Let's take this all back to the basics.

1. MLB "should" want to get their product in front of as many eyeballs as possible, thus drawing income from those eyeballs plus growing the fan base.  Any arguments here?

2. By restricting game coverage from the people who want to watch the games is the exact opposite of how to grow the game and also restricts the possible income from those fans.  Arguments?

3. Nobody is making any money off the people who can't watch the games. 

4. Every aspect of this controversy stems from greed.(So this really is shooting themselves in the foot.)

From my perspective, I still get to see the Twins on Bally through my cable company that is delivered via Amazon Fire stick.  But, I obviously don't see this lasting.  Also, I would love to be able to watch other MLB games that are not in my market(also MiLB games.).  That is all pretty simple, right?  Cable is gradually going away.  Streaming is taking over.  MLB - take over the whole shebang with your MLBTV, no blackouts, no exceptions.  Set up pricing that will make a profit without gouging the fan.  We have the technology.  How hard could it be?  Sheesh, if they could make Steve Austin a 6 million dollar man back in the 70's, and fly to the moon,  they should be able to figure out how to get baseball to the fans across the whole country.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Most people have Comcast, DirecTV, etc for a variety of programming.   Therefore, many would still have that expense and still be paying for their current services. 

That may be true but I can't fathom why. You can get all the other non-sports programming (plus a lot of other, better programs) on streaming much cheaper. Based on the comments above it sounds like cable is for people who can't figure out how remote controls work. Enjoy it while it lasts, cable is likely to end by 2030 if not sooner.

[Major League Ready]

9 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That may be true but I can't fathom why. You can get all the other non-sports programming (plus a lot of other, better programs) on streaming much cheaper. Based on the comments above it sounds like cable is for people who can't figure out how remote controls work. Enjoy it while it lasts, cable is likely to end by 2030 if not sooner.

I don't disagree even a little, but Comcast has 17.5M subscribers.  DirecTV has 11M, etc.   Should we ignore their right to choose because we prefer a different product?  Those people would have been forced to find a different solution.  All I am saying is that both sides of the equation should be considered.  It's easy to ignore what those people want when you are not one of them.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Heiny said:

That would be ok with me.  He should be a game show host anyway.  Bring back Dick and Bert and all tv contracts would fall into place.

I have not heard this take before. All comments regarding CP that I have read have been positive. I cannot provide an opinion as I have not watched a Twins game in over 13/14 months. I too really enjoyed DB, his voice was relaxing, however over the last couple seasons that I did watch he was making some verbal mistakes, reminded me of the last few years of Herb Carneal(sp?).

I have been listening to games on radio and thought CP did a good job. I also think Hatteberg does a good job, but have read many comments of dissatisfaction.

 

[TheLeviathan]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

My complaint is that the Twins are actively shrinking their fanbase. They cut payroll this offseason to "right-size" their business. If their fanbase goes down their revenue goes down and more "right-sizing" needs to happen which makes the team worse. And I like the team to be better, not worse. That's my complaint. 

You're making a valiant effort against an asinine strawman.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:38 PM, DocBauer said:

I live in Nebraska so I'm not in a blackout area, other than Royals games where I'm forced to the radio, or the Bally channel on cable that carries said games. So I'm lucky in that regard. But I do feel pain for those that are in the mess of blackout area and now Bally/Comcast FUBAR situation. 

I also work for a telecommunications company. Cable is dying quickly. For perspective reasons, I'd like to cover a few things. Why do cable companies "force" you to car4y so many channels? Part of it is federal regulations that require a certain number of "slots" for educational and local channels dependent on how many total channels said cable company offers. In other words, the more channels offered means even more channels must be offered. Additionally, there's about 5 HUGE parent companies that own all of the various channels available to us all on a trickle down affect. Example: Disney doesn't just own Disney, they own ABC and ESPN. Those parent companies want/need their channels to have viewers so they are sold to cable companies in packages very often.

Cable TV costs more, overall, than a streaming service. That's the primary reason it's dying. Every couple of years, by law/regulation, a cable company must renegotiate deals/contracts with providers. Additionally, streaming services...while providing the SAME CONTENT...are regulated and taxed differently than cable companies and are not subject to certain restrictions as to blackouts or regional content. Further, when a streaming service carries local channels, they do so with an "umbrella" deal from the PARENT corporation that sets a standard fee for the COUNTRY and individual local stations are forced to accept these fees rather than negotiate directly with the local cable companies, usually for more money. 

Often times, when you look at a cable TV package of channels and compare it to a streaming service, the actual cost of channel per dollar is less, or equivalent, on cable to said streaming service. Not always, but ofter. 

Cable TV, previously, offered a more stable floor of known subscribers for someone like Diamond/Bally to make $M offers to sports teams based on subscribers and varying sports fees and rates. BUT, many people now want a different option with fewer channels and a lower monthly rate because it fits their viewing needs and habits better. Nothing wrong with that! I watch far less than half of the channels my company provides me, though it's nice to have them available. 

Streaming IS where ALL CONTENT is going. Many smaller companies across the country are already dropping TV service because it's expensive to provide with a very small profit margin. (Really, cable companies don't make near what you think they do by TV). Some larger companies are begining to offer smaller, less expensive packages for customers to stream, but without sports as they are the most expensive channels/content to supply.

The Twins ARE going to be streaming, and probably next year. Some teams are already, and many more will be very soon as well. But it's going to get worse before it gets better gang. $19.99 a month to watch the Twins would need tens of thousands of households before they could come close to meeting the $45M plus mark of incoming cash flow they've had previously. And since there are teams, Yankees for example, that control their $/TV destiny, with a larger population base as well, the payroll instability in MLB is only going to get worse before it gets better.

In the long run, more options for the consumer...though streaming services continue to raise rates as well...and a larger footprint to grow a fan base is good, and better for everyone. In the short term, it's going to be a mess.

While not directly affected by these events, on the one hand, I can see the Twins Ownership accepting the $ for the one year deal presented to them at the 11th hour. But on the other hand, since payroll was already being reduced, I wish the owners of my favorite ML team had been forward thinking enough to begin embracing the future, and opportunities to grow their fan base and seek out new forms of revenue growth instead of a 1yr cash grab.

It's a big cluster of a mess that might take a few years of instability across the sport until the floor stabilizes. The only good news, at the moment, would be that streaming is probably coming next year for everyone.

 

 

Love this post

one quibble. MLB.TV is owned by the MLB, so a streaming service offered would be 100% going to MLB and the Twins. If the MLB and Twins went halvsies the Twins would need 750k subscribers to hit $45m in revenue. 
 

no cable company and no distribution network means fewer mouths to feed

[TFelton]

I am in ND. Midco, no longer get Twins games as of May 01. 
Is spending $19.99 / month for Bally App solo subscription an option in addition to Fubu or Directv options? I have mlb tv also for all the games / other teams. Dread having to pay another $20 / month but least invasive change in short term right?  Anyone do this - I see they have a free 7 day trial. Maybe I’m wrong or missed that in the comments here?

[Major League Ready]

Correct me if I am wrong.   Twin’s fans fall into 3 groups.
       1)   Fan’s currently paying an over the air carrier $80+/month for Twins / Wolves / Lynx / Other.
      2)  Those who have a streaming package for the Twins or Twins + Other MLB teams.
      3)  Those who are unhappy with 1&2 and are unwilling to pay for either form of coverage.

All of the members of group 1 would have obviously been screwed had the twins not resigned with Bally's..  Group 2 has remained the same.  Group 3 would have a new solution.  If this solution was inexpensive, this group would be happy.  Members of group 3 feel the Twins should have forced the current paying customers to drop their current provider and switch or pay both providers if they wish to keep coverage for the TWolves/Lynx and all of the other channels their family wants to keep so that they could have a cheaper option.  

I understand the desire for a better streaming option but the insistence that the Twins are incompetent because they took $40M+ from Bally’s to continue servicing their paying customers is where some of you lose me.  Wait a year.  Would anyone bet there won’t be a streaming option next year?  It seems to me this outcry is over one more year of things remaining the same while MLB not just the Twins roll-out a solution for group 3 and any group 1 or 2 members who WANT to switch.
 

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Correct me if I am wrong.   Twin’s fans fall into 3 groups.
       1)   Fan’s currently paying an over the air carrier $80+/month for Twins / Wolves / Lynx / Other.
      2)  Those who have a streaming package for the Twins or Twins + Other MLB teams.
      3)  Those who are unhappy with 1&2 and are unwilling to pay for either form of coverage.

All of the members of group 1 would have obviously been screwed had the twins not resigned with Bally's..  Group 2 has remained the same.  Group 3 would have a new solution.  If this solution was inexpensive, this group would be happy.  Members of group 3 feel the Twins should have forced the current paying customers to drop their current provider and switch or pay both providers if they wish to keep coverage for the TWolves/Lynx and all of the other channels their family wants to keep so that they could have a cheaper option.  

I understand the desire for a better streaming option but the insistence that the Twins are incompetent because they took $40M+ from Bally’s to continue servicing their paying customers is where some of you lose me.  Wait a year.  Would anyone bet there won’t be a streaming option next year?  It seems to me this outcry is over one more year of things remaining the same while MLB not just the Twins roll-out a solution for group 3 and any group 1 or 2 members who WANT to switch.
 

Group 1 is lying to themselves if they don't think "being forced to change" isn't inevitable.  Continuing to cater to that group and that mentality is partially why we sit here today.  It's the "fingers in the ears, close my eyes, pretend cable will be just fine" method.  It isn't.  It won't be. It hasn't been for a LONG time.

All the Twins did by making the choice to hitch their wagon to Bally's one more year is force a payroll cut and kick the can down the road.  Other markets have demonstrated that there are alternatives, even ones that don't require a change.  (Like in Phoenix, where basketball games are available on local channels)  Will they be as profitable?  No, but no future solution will be as profitable as the cable era.  The goal should be to grow the game and your fanbase.  Putting that decision off has real long-term consequences.  "Waiting" has been the strategy for nearly a decade.  They've "waited" themselves into exactly this mess.

The Twins certainly aren't alone in blame for this and perhaps, by some of their past choices, there may not have been much of an option.  However, this is the culmination of a series of bad partnerships and short-term thinking that landed them here.  No hindsight is required either....some of us had been arguing about this inevitability for 6-7 years now.

[whitsbrain]

18 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That may be true but I can't fathom why. You can get all the other non-sports programming (plus a lot of other, better programs) on streaming much cheaper. Based on the comments above it sounds like cable is for people who can't figure out how remote controls work. Enjoy it while it lasts, cable is likely to end by 2030 if not sooner.

I am a Xfinity customer out of necessity, not by choice.  I can complain about Xfinity all I want, but the reality is that their internet service is the fastest and most reliable I can get in my area, which is important to me as an IT guy.  Now, the problem of using their Cable TV service is due to my wife hating change, like losing her Xfinity DVR and having to learn how to use a streaming device.

I have helped many people who can't operate something as simple as an Apple TV device without being overtaken by some sort of weird panic attack when they can't find "their show" in 5 seconds.  And I'm not going to start with the miniscule number of people who have any concept of what an input is.  😩

[DJL44]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Correct me if I am wrong.   Twin’s fans fall into 3 groups.
       1)   Fan’s currently paying an over the air carrier $80+/month for Twins / Wolves / Lynx / Other.
      2)  Those who have a streaming package for the Twins or Twins + Other MLB teams.
      3)  Those who are unhappy with 1&2 and are unwilling to pay for either form of coverage.

All of the members of group 1 would have obviously been screwed had the twins not resigned with Bally's..  Group 2 has remained the same.  Group 3 would have a new solution.  If this solution was inexpensive, this group would be happy.  Members of group 3 feel the Twins should have forced the current paying customers to drop their current provider and switch or pay both providers if they wish to keep coverage for the TWolves/Lynx and all of the other channels their family wants to keep so that they could have a cheaper option.  

I understand the desire for a better streaming option but the insistence that the Twins are incompetent because they took $40M+ from Bally’s to continue servicing their paying customers is where some of you lose me.  Wait a year.  Would anyone bet there won’t be a streaming option next year?  It seems to me this outcry is over one more year of things remaining the same while MLB not just the Twins roll-out a solution for group 3 and any group 1 or 2 members who WANT to switch.

It doesn't have to be either/or; it could be both/and. The Twins could have made games available to a channel to show them over the air and/or on cable with a non-exclusive license and still allow people to subscribe to MLB.tv for streaming. In fact, this is what they had Cory Provus tell everyone they were pursuing this offseason. Instead they negotiated an exclusive broadcasting deal with a station that can't even get the games on TV because that put the most money in their pocket in 2024.

BSN thought the exclusivity would mean the big cable companies would have to pay whatever they asked but obviously Comcast assessed that there isn't enough demand for Twins games that they are worried about the subscribers they will inevitably lose. I'm not sure if Comcast is really worried about "losing" subscribers. They see the overall trends and know their future is as an internet service provider rather than a cable company.

[Riverbrian]

I don't know... So I will ask. 

How much does the bankruptcy proceedings influence the negotiation between Comcast and Diamond? 

On the surface... you'd think that Comcast held the cards because this has to be a huge revenue hit for Diamond but, with the shadow of bankruptcy hanging over them... isn't there a possibility that the Twins will not see a penny of this thing? 

In a nutshell.. Considering everything and the games to be played. Forget about the Twins and Comcast for a moment... What does Diamond want to accomplish here.  

[Major League Ready]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

Group 1 is lying to themselves if they don't think "being forced to change" isn't inevitable.  Continuing to cater to that group and that mentality is partially why we sit here today.  It's the "fingers in the ears, close my eyes, pretend cable will be just fine" method.  It isn't.  It won't be. 

All the Twins did by making the choice to hitch their wagon to Bally's one more year is force a payroll cut and kick the can down the road.  Other markets have demonstrated that there are alternatives, even ones that don't require a change.  (Like in Phoenix, where games are available on local channels)  Will they be as profitable?  No, but no future solution will be as profitable as the cable era.  The goal should be to grow the game and your fanbase.  Putting that decision off has real long-term consequences.  "Waiting" has been the strategy for nearly a decade.  They've "waited" themselves into exactly this mess.

The Twins certainly aren't alone in blame for this and perhaps, by some of their past choices, there may not have been much of an option.  However, this is the culmination of a series of bad partnerships and short-term thinking that landed them here.  No hindsight is required either....some of us had been arguing about this inevitability for 6-7 years now.

Are you really saying the Twins should screw over their current customers because they elect to subscribe to Comcast / DirecTV / others in order to service clients that have been unwilling to pay for service?   Why is it a bad plan to service the current clients while MLB and/or the Twins roll-out a new option next year?

[DJL44]

16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

isn't there a possibility that the Twins will not see a penny of this thing? 

Are the Twins really that stupid? If I was negotiating with a bankrupt company I would ask for payment in advance.

[TheLeviathan]

22 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Are you really saying the Twins should screw over their current customers because they elect to subscribe to Comcast / DirecTV / others in order to service clients that have been unwilling to pay for service?   Why is it a bad plan to service the current clients while MLB and/or the Twins roll-out a new option next year?

*Checks original story*

Um....they ARE screwing over a bunch of their customers.  Right now.  Today.  They could've been rolling out that new option last year.  Or the year before.  Or 5 years ago.  Regardless of when they do/did it.....those current customers are going to have to change what they subscribe to.  The demand to change services is the only part of this that is guaranteed for many customers.  That fact won't change when they roll it out next year.  That's baked in to what "change" is.  

Hell...had they not "waited", some of us who sail the seven seas or find other ways (T-mobile, etc) might have considered their new broadcasting plan and gotten on board!  Instead, we're fully ostracized from their broadcasting balance sheets.  Permanently in all likelihood.

What you keep missing with the suggestion "It's ok to wait" is to fail to see how that exact strategy has culminated in this embarrassing failure to serve fans. The Twins'  (and MLB at large primarily) prioritization of short-term profits and waiting just made this mess even messier and dragged out.  This battle is coming for every MLB team in time, the smart ones will get ahead of the curve.  The Twins clearly failed to by waiting.

[Linus]

24 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Are the Twins really that stupid? If I was negotiating with a bankrupt company I would ask for payment in advance.

Umm I think the way the Twins have handled this whole situation is your answer. 

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, Linus said:

Umm I think the way the Twins have handled this whole situation is your answer. 

That would explain why none of the money was allocated to payroll.

[Linus]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That would explain why none of the money was allocated to payroll.

To be serious about your question last contract they got paid in installments. If you remember they were late on paying several teams. Don’t know if it is different in this situation. It would be ironic if Bally just defaulted and the Twins don’t get their money after choosing to chase the extra dollars from Bally. 

[dex8425]

11 hours ago, TFelton said:

I am in ND. Midco, no longer get Twins games as of May 01. 
Is spending $19.99 / month for Bally App solo subscription an option in addition to Fubu or Directv options? 

No. Twins sold the streaming rights, so the Twins don't appear on the Ballysports app. (unless you validate with a subscription to another service, which as you mentioned is just directtv or directv stream) The Wild and Wolves are on the app though. The app sucks, to put it mildly. 

 

[Major League Ready]

20 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It doesn't have to be either/or; it could be both/and. The Twins could have made games available to a channel to show them over the air and/or on cable with a non-exclusive license and still allow people to subscribe to MLB.tv for streaming. In fact, this is what they had Cory Provus tell everyone they were pursuing this offseason. Instead they negotiated an exclusive broadcasting deal with a station that can't even get the games on TV because that put the most money in their pocket in 2024.

BSN thought the exclusivity would mean the big cable companies would have to pay whatever they asked but obviously Comcast assessed that there isn't enough demand for Twins games that they are worried about the subscribers they will inevitably lose. I'm not sure if Comcast is really worried about "losing" subscribers. They see the overall trends and know their future is as an internet service provider rather than a cable company.

Do you think this model is viable long-term?  Would this model generate less TV revenue than every team in MLB?   

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you think this model is viable long-term?  Would this model generate less TV revenue than every team in MLB?   

Their current model is not viable long term and generates less TV revenue than every team in MLB. Non-exclusive partnerships would do a much better job of building the fanbase which should lead to more ticket sales.

I have heard rumors that MLB, NBA and NHL are working on a partnership for a sports streaming service. That would be a good path forward but I'm worried it will turn into a fragmented mess where games are parceled out and sold to several streaming services.

[Major League Ready]

11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Their current model is not viable long term and generates less TV revenue than every team in MLB. Non-exclusive partnerships would do a much better job of building the fanbase which should lead to more ticket sales.

I have heard rumors that MLB, NBA and NHL are working on a partnership for a sports streaming service. That would be a good path forward but I'm worried it will turn into a fragmented mess where games are parceled out and sold to several streaming services.

Absolutely no disagreement from me that the current model is not viable long-term.   The question is if the model you proposed is viable long-term.  An over the air provider is not going to sign a 1 or 2 year contract.  That broadcaster has to buy equipment, hire many people, and invest existing resources to take on this endeavor.  Let's hope MLB and the team of industry experts they brought in to develop a new distribution model have something better in the works.  That would explain why the Twins have not opted for the solution you outlined.