Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    No one should defend the owners on this....but minor leaguer pay could be something the player's union fights for too. It would be a small win with huge ramifications. Instead they always concede that issue in order to further enrich themselves. These guys suffer most in a fight between millionaires and billionaires. I've just never understood why teams don't invest in their player assets. It's a mind-boggling piece of selfishness.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Yes. Yes they are.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Rally Monkey is sad.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I came to the comments to make this joke. Hat tip good sir.
  5. TheLeviathan
    3M for one of the leagues best interior pocket pushers? Um, yes.
  6. TheLeviathan
    It doesn't kill you, but you enter firmly into the "niche" category. Baseball has hit the gas on that track the last two years. I thought I was doom and gloom predicting it would take 20 years!
  7. TheLeviathan
    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.
  8. TheLeviathan
    During the broadcast they said Baldelli noted he is still experiencing "soreness".
  9. TheLeviathan
    Remember when people argued his deal was too much? Good times.
  10. TheLeviathan
    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.
  11. TheLeviathan
    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.
  12. TheLeviathan
    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 share your sentiments howeda and are generally aghast at the move. (That's relevant because reddit is a bastion of cord cutting and streaming users. In other words: your most likely potential customers)
  13. TheLeviathan
    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" In the era of streaming....especially in the streaming market....that idea will utterly fail everytime. AT&T failed with that mentality in the still legacy-laden cable market much less streaming. I can link you to the "success" of their pricepoints and offerings if you'd like. (Hint: their investors weren't rewarded to circle back to my initial joke) Several other streaming platforms are struggling or merging at, again, pricepoints a half to even a fourth of this cost. Maybe the gambling thing is a revolution and will drive demand. Me? I'll bet they sell their losses to another service within two years or scramble like fools to save their pride when their subscription rates underwhelm.
  14. TheLeviathan
    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 attempt to appear less predatory by having a lower price tag for dramatically less in return. Yet it's functionally the equivalent of telling Netflix you'd like to pay double for their service for two episodes of Breaking Bad a night and nothing more. Like...lock everything else out...that's all I want to get....here's double what you asked. The flaw in your argument stems from a comparison of "competitive" that centers on a predatory market with terrible price points. No definition of reasonable makes sense unless you accept AT&T as a reasonable point of comparison. I don't accept that, those guys are gouging anyone that signed up. But when Bally Sports weeds through the non-MLB.TV, streaming capable, non-dish, non-cable, non-pirating folks to whatever band of people is left....they'll know they have people willing to pay more if they already signed up for $23. If the service survives long enough to price hike, they'll price hike.
  15. TheLeviathan
    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.
  16. TheLeviathan
    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 isolated viewing experience that only occurs, at best, for a few hours a day. I imagine if this does anything it spikes pirating cuz $0 is way better than either option and isn't hard to do. IMO, they should offer it at a much lower price initially and then ramp up over time. Get people's feet in the door rather than a price tag that might turn people off right away.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Quadruple the price of Disney Plus you say? Good luck to those investors.
  18. TheLeviathan
    No, no we don't.
  19. TheLeviathan
    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, even if that feels like a thumb in the eye to you. (And I say that as a person who does actively maintain four older systems, so sentimentally I can relate)
  20. TheLeviathan
    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
  21. TheLeviathan
    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.
  22. TheLeviathan
    A lot of the best games of the older generations are getting resmastered versions anyway so I'm not sure it's going to hurt too much. Gamepass is really the only selling point for X-box IMO. Playstation continues to deliver the best gaming experiences, best new titles, and the most reliable hardware. It was an easy choice for me.
  23. TheLeviathan
    TROLPO ate him.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Part of the problem with school funding up front at the state level is that so many students are going to college that funding at the same level per student would blow a lot of these state budgets apart. In the last ten years there has been a dip of about 10% in state funding, but in that same time period colleges rose tuition by 28%. Cutting from state budgets is part of the problem, but not driving the issue IMO. (Not disagreeing, just pointing out a misconception that often happens) I dig tying loans to tuition rates. I'm also game to tie them to future earnings. A lot of these colleges get people in the door promising future earnings they know are unlikely at best. Bringing bankruptcy back into the picture might help with this as well. Make colleges partially on the hook for any bankruptcy costs by their students. Part of how we get here is the investment by a bank/government for a future doctor is just as risky as it is for a loan investment in an art history major. That doesn't make any sense and feeds the "free trough of money" problem I believe is at root here. We have a real problem (it'd be nice if the evil bastards called Republicans would recognize that. Especially as an economic anchor) but we have some really bad solutions out there that need to be checked. (Looking at you lefties!) So, in other words, we have a typical 2021 problem with no end in sight.
  25. TheLeviathan
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/sports/baseball/mlb-injuries-soft-tissue.html https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/09/baseball-injuries-mlb-rise-reasons-covid Lots of articles out there confirming a large spike in baseball injuries. These are just two of a trove that arent hard to find. Nothing to do with the Twins sucking, just one more sweet ingredient to MLB's rapid decline into irrelevancy.
×
×
  • Create New...