Stormy Skies Ahead?: Amazon, Audacy, and the Future of Twins Broadcasting

Good piece. The thing this latest news calls out is the instability of everything and how little time MLB has to assemble a far-reaching plan to replace the RSN revenue model.  There's a chance that Amazon funding a good enough outlet for RSN streaming will blow up any chance MLB has of making their offering good enough to displace it. If a bunch of teams start opting for 50% of what they got before and MLB hasn't got a wide enough list of games to sell who will pay for their offering at, say, $25 if Prime can get it for you at $20?   So much uncertainty, so little time, and not enough teams in trouble to slow the whole mess down. All but three teams have 2024 deals, right?  Gonna be an interesting couple weeks...

As a long time Twins fan, I haven't been able to watch the Twins on a regular basis since 2020 due to BSN and YT TV not seeing eye-to-eye. And to compound things, because I'm located in MN, I can't even use MLB.TV or the BSN+ app due to blackout regulations. 

So ultimately at this point it is MLB killing their own sport because they can't figure something out. The Twins aren't big enough to get more national games so ESPN is typically out the door, and Apple TV+ is Friday exclusive. Baseball in terms of watch ability is easily the worst handled of all the 4 major NA sports. 

Now if Amazon and MLB could partner up, that would be, IMO, a huge win for baseball fans everywhere, especially with more people cutting cable and going to streaming services.

I don't understand why a one year deal with Bally's is now unlikely? It still seems like the best short-terms solution. It's not like Bally's will refuse.

All I know is that whatever will make MLB/owners $1 today as opposed to $10 tomorrow is what will happen. And fans be damned, what's best for them won't even be in the top 50 considerations.

23 minutes ago, chaderic20 said:

All I know is that whatever will make MLB/owners $1 today as opposed to $10 tomorrow is what will happen. And fans be damned, what's best for them won't even be in the top 50 considerations.

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

Bally's really can't force the hand of the Twins for more than 1 year as worst case they go with MLB.   They also don't have the other teams past 2024.  So the real question, does Amazon and Bally's together have more cache and earnings potential, than what MLB can do on its own and with local media rights?  Its a fair question and ultimately I think better than what we had before.  Any new deal will have no blackouts - that is non negotiable, so right there is a major improvement.  For a bunch of mediocre teams Amazon was willing to pay 20 mil per a year for the streaming rights.  That means the Twins are worth at least that much in a new negotiation.   So then what are the Television rights,  20 Mil, 30 mil,  35 mil?    

Ultimately the issue has always come down to money.  Once the dust settles, it doesn't appear to be a major monetary change.  so we have a potential new option with Amazon for a year.  The question is, is Bally's who has said they are done after 2023 now the viable solution moving forward.  If not them, then who?   We still have some moving parts, but I feel a lot better about 2024, and think 2025  and moving forward will turn out pretty good as well.   

20 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

Or they'll use their financial clout to make their friends happy and piss off their enemies. Most of these billionaires are into professional sports to impress people.

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

That would be great assuming it was with a streamer that offered more than just baseball broadcasting.

That almost happened. If the FTC had allowed the Disney/FOX merger to keep the RSNs you would be watching everything on ESPN+ right now as part of a Disney+ bundle.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Billionaires as a group have an exponentially better understanding of long-term value than baseball fans in general.  If they don't possess that skillset, and even if they do, they hire people exceptionally skilled in this area.   They also don't need the money.  It is basically certain that they will evaluate the various future state scenarios and pick the option with the best long-term financial outlook.

This is just not accurate.  Business today is all about maximizing stockholder value or profits.  (Recall Milton Friedman:  "a corporation's only duty is to create profits for its shareholders"  Big wigs who don't demonstrate immediate returns get fired.  There is no long view.  Ask, I don't know, the Pohlads, who do not seem to understand that investing in the team may cost money now but may also create a new generation of lifetime fans. It's all about short term profits for them.  

1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

This is just not accurate.  Business today is all about maximizing stockholder value or profits.  (Recall Milton Friedman:  "a corporation's only duty is to create profits for its shareholders"  Big wigs who don't demonstrate immediate returns get fired.  There is no long view.  Ask, I don't know, the Pohlads, who do not seem to understand that investing in the team may cost money now but may also create a new generation of lifetime fans. It's all about short term profits for them.  

For starters, this have to do with owners who answer to nobody?   They are going to do whatever is best for them in the long run.  If you think they are so ignorant as to prioritize short-term gains you are badly misinformed.  Actually, uninformed would be more accurate.  

5 minutes ago, Eris said:

I don’t something here. The Twins original contract with Fox Sports (which Bally inherited/bought when Fox Sports sold the rights to Sinclair) ended at the end of 2023. The Twins could sell their broadcast rights to entity they can reach an agreement with). Why are they being forced to Bally (or when was the contract extended). What am I missing. 
 

With regards to cost to the users, I think streaming will be more expensive than cable, as the cost for streaming will be paid directly by the user. With cable, the services were bundled which meant that individual users did not pay the true cost of a service. Streaming services could bundle as well to spread costs but then eventually they will run in to the same dynamic as cable companies—the cost of bundled services will exceed what average user is willing to pay and they stop subscribing to the services. 

Streaming offers the opportunity to tailor the service that is completely unbundled.  They could offer the ability to purchase a single game pass.  Obviously, they would charge a higher rate.  It might be $3-4 for a single game but viewers would not have to commit to anything.  Per game fees would be billed to a credit card on file.  They could sell 20 or 40 or 80 game packages or a season pass.  Playoffs could be included in a season pass or even that could be sold on a per game basis.  

i am in the boat of hopefully streaming with no blackouts. Now that the ears don't work anymore radio is not an option although it was my favorite option.

previous cable has been terrible bunch of junk channels to watch a few for several hours a week and the price was not worth it.

I can see why MLB would like to get all the rights with exception of over the air broadcasts etc.  i am sure the lawyers are having nice war room chats.

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Yes, best for them, the billionaires as individuals, not one of their many individual investments which would be the team, and certainly not the sport itself.

And they almost always take the money in hand now, which can be reinvested, instead of prospective money two decades from now, when most of them would be dead.

 

Who do you think is most likely to look out for the best interest of the game?  Players who have an extremely short-window to cash-in or owners who reap enormous financial reward for growing the sport and keeping it healthy.  The answer is quite clear when reviewing the position of both sides during the last CBA.  I am not suggesting the owners would look out for the long-term interests of the game out of love for the game.  Their selfish interests align much better with the long-term interest of the game than the players who wanted to reduce revenue sharing, pushed hard for a very high luxury tax threshold, and opposed an international draft.

MLB has to be shook up at the influx of white knight $$$ coming into the banko proceedings.  The plan to eventually control all of  their broadcasting rights in house is most likely up in flames.  If the last remaining individual teams negotiate a multi year deal with the new org structure , its a done deal. Amazon and their partners will own it and control it for many years. Is that good for the fans? Maybe in the short term but how high will streaming fees go? How will the revenue be divided?  
so many questions! Even in the short term, will MLB acquiesce to the proposal or will they object?  

It is disappointing that this discussion has devolved into a rant about millionaires and billionaires. Insert any other group into the discussion, that "they" "always" or "never" do this or that and see what reaction you get. I will tell you that millionaires and billionaires are like everyone else. Ten percent are saintly, ten percent are the devil and 80 percent are somewhere in between. But the notion that they have a herd mentality bifurcated by three 000s is equally ridiculous and funny.    

Casual empiricism  would tell me that historically 80% of the stuff written about Joe Mauer on this forum has been negative. All based on his money and hamstringing the team financially into disappointing results. (Like any one person that wrote that stuff would have turned the money down.) Now that he is headed to Cooperstown, he has always been our guy. 

Perhaps this is my favorite passage  of the week (see above) "The Twins are running out of options and running out of time. Diamond and Amazon have maximum leverage against a team desperate for cash. "  (This may or may not have been written by clickbait AI. )

I am pretty sure this would be news to the folks at One Twins Way.  I would guess the club doesn't need to make one penny from media this year and the Twins/Pohlads will be just fine. 

I would tell Mr. Labuza and Mr. Bonnes that if you want to write about finance and bankruptcy particulars then know something about them or consult someone who does. I realize that this isn't the Wall Street Journal but do we want to have grownup discussions or not? 

Great article!  Well written and researched.  I haven't been able to watch the Twins ( nor Wild, and Timberwolves, and others) at home for over 3 seasons., due to the very limited availability of Bally Sports on the various media outlets.  The Twins promised three years ago they were go