Jump to content
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
  • Content Count

    17,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

TheLeviathan last won the day on March 17 2019

TheLeviathan had the most liked content!

About TheLeviathan

  • Rank
    Twins News Team
  • Birthday 08/09/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hunter being locked in and a return by Richardson brings automatic dividends. Our pass rush was the worst I can remember in my lifetime as a Vikings fan last year. Richardson, Tomlinson, Hunter, and a rotation of young guys sounds worlds better to me. Combo that with Darrisaw-Cleveland-Bradbury-Davis-O'Neill on the OL and I haven't felt this good about the trenches since Favre was QBing this team.
  2. During the broadcast they said Baldelli noted he is still experiencing "soreness".
  3. Remember when people argued his deal was too much? Good times.
  4. I've defended Sano for awhile, but this team's best future is probably not going to include him. Not at 1B or DH and that's all I think he can play. They need to decide what Gordon's best future position is and play him there every day. Every day, I don't care who has to sit.
  5. If Buxton is healthy: trade him. This team burned the extension bridge with him and, even if they didn't, I want no part of it. If he could play 120 games I'd give him the farm, but he can't. Get what you can and start making sure Gordon or Lewis or someone else is the CFer of the future for this team. Disclaimer: I do not love this conclusion, it's just the only reasonable one left.
  6. It looks like 2023: https://www.twincities.com/2016/02/12/local-tv-deal-doesnt-hamper-twins-payroll-team-president-says/ but I couldn't find anything written in stone in that. I agree a Victory Sports One scenario could happen and likely with the same results. Streamers compete with the option to pay $0 so any option that doesn't immediately catch you as a reasonable price point is bound to fail and push people to piracy. Of course, there is a moral dilemma with that, but so is giving any money to this company. Searching Bally Sports on Reddit will tell you a lot of people shar
  7. They are not a "bit" higher. They are multiples higher. You can't on one hand argue the price is competitive with cable then turn around and argue the streaming benefits and wish wash between the two. Your argument tries to have it's cake and eat it too. Let's stop that please. This is a non competitive streaming cost. Point blank. This idea is competing with services offering a fraction of the price with significantly more content. The thinking behind it is akin to AT&T's rationale to their non-competitive $92: "We know what people have to have and we'll gouge them to get it"
  8. So your argument is that Bally will be the one streaming service that won't do that because.....good charity? Their heart has grown two sizes? Baked into the idea that they are introducing it at $23 is the idea that they'll hike it as they figure out who is willing. That's part of the business model. Plus, this entire situation is predicated on the idea that they are trying to squeeze people who are high demand, don't know how else to view sports, have limited options, or just don't know what they're doing. $92 for AT&T's crap service screams predatory market. That's what this is: an
  9. I would imagine you wouldn't have DVR, it would just be on demand streaming which cuts out those things automatically. And I would guess that regardless of opening price point you will see it increase. I do see your point on sling though. This whole thing seems mostly about AT&T having a stupid price point.
  10. It may kill cable, but that's a wounded animal already. It's important to consider what access people have. In many areas of these markets decent enough wi-fi for streaming is still not available. People have cable and dishes, in part, because there just isn't the means to make live streaming feasible. It's also competing with another streaming option already in existence in MLB.TV as well as what the NHL and NBA offer. (Including the NHL which doesn't block radio streaming) Is $23 better than $92? Sure. But that $92 included a lot more than a channel you want basically for one is
  11. Quadruple the price of Disney Plus you say? Good luck to those investors.
  12. Yeah, I don't think you're being unreasonable or anything. There was a time it mattered to me as well. Hell, we have a 64 and a Wii that our kids still play despite the Switch. I just wonder how many people actually use that capability and make their purchasing decisions off of it. At the end of the day, my $500 bucks is to play the next game, not a pixelated one from ten years ago. It seems like Sony bet on that when they were deciding what hardware/software/features to focus on. By a quick glance at sales and demand, it may be they have the right read on the overall gaming market, e
  13. From a minor league perspective: https://sports.yahoo.com/a-sticky-dilemma-mlb-foreign-substance-crackdown-could-put-minor-league-pitchers-in-a-bind-184952416.html
  14. That's fair...I guess my question is how much time do you want to spend on games that old with a new system? I've never quite understood why developers should spend resources appeasing legacy support vs just saying "keep your old systems"? Not knocking the appeal of nostalgia games, just always wondered how much people actually use that feature.
×
×
  • Create New...