All Things 2024-25 Minnesota Twins Off-Season Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Regarding the possibility of a new owner deciding to move the Twins to a different city: are there really any viable options? It seems like most of the areas that are capable of supporting an MLB team already have a club.

I highly doubt that MLB would be keen to return to Oakland.
 

RememberMurray said:
Regarding the possibility of a new owner deciding to move the Twins to a different city: are there really any viable options? It seems like most of the areas that are capable of supporting an MLB team already have a club.

I highly doubt that MLB would be keen to return to Oakland.
Click to expand...
Zero worry about that.
 

RememberMurray said:
Regarding the possibility of a new owner deciding to move the Twins to a different city: are there really any viable options? It seems like most of the areas that are capable of supporting an MLB team already have a club.

I highly doubt that MLB would be keen to return to Oakland.
Click to expand...
Nashville

I'm going to trademark and buy the web domain for Nashville Possums right now.
 


RememberMurray said:
Regarding the possibility of a new owner deciding to move the Twins to a different city: are there really any viable options? It seems like most of the areas that are capable of supporting an MLB team already have a club.

I highly doubt that MLB would be keen to return to Oakland.
Click to expand...
Breakin' The Plane said:
Nashville
Click to expand...
Nashville is the no-brainer. I would be absolutely shocked if there isn't a team there by the end of the decade.

One of these 3 would likely be the other:

Salt Lake City
Montreal
Portland

Sentimentally, I would like them to bring back the Expos.
 


This may be relevant only for people of a certain age, but...

Garage Logic podcast crew gets Tom Kelly on the phone to discuss the Twins ownership situation. If you possess some gray hair, you'll get a good belly laugh or two. I certainly did.

 


Twins aren’t going anywhere. The lease is too airtight and the stadium is better than most expansion cities could build.

Doesn’t necessarily mean any new owner is gonna open the purse strings but a much better chance they will than the Pohlads. The Pohlads bought this team for $43 million bucks and stand to sell for over a billion dollars. Turning a profit or keeping fans happy was irrelevant to them as the younger generation, admittedly not baseball people. You buy this team for 1,5 billion there better be a plan to win the fan base back or at the very least make it valuable enough to sell in 20 years for 3 billion dollars.
 




GopherGrit said:
Is the new TV really only going to be $4M? Or is that just for streaming?
Click to expand...
$4M may be optimistic, as that would require 40,000 subscribers. It also does not account for production expenses they are now on the hook for.

That does not count ad revenue though or any additional rights they might get from a partial package over the air. There could also be some subsidies from MLB for teams in the Twins plight.

Add it all together, maybe they get to $10M, or $15M, tops? Just stuff I have heard on podcasts and what not.
 


GopherGrit said:
Wow.

If the true market value of (most, regular season) Twins games is only $10M, then it explains why a regional cable network giving them $50M went bankrupt. :(
Click to expand...
Completely different paradigm.

The regional cable networks were able to scrape a much smaller subscription fee but over 3-4 million subscribers as well as recoup the advertisement revenue and bundle with other programming. It worked for several decades, but once the cut the corders took full effect dropping to it down to the 1 million range, then poof. Failure.
 

Ope3 said:
$4M may be optimistic, as that would require 40,000 subscribers. It also does not account for production expenses they are now on the hook for.

That does not count ad revenue though or any additional rights they might get from a partial package over the air. There could also be some subsidies from MLB for teams in the Twins plight.

Add it all together, maybe they get to $10M, or $15M, tops? Just stuff I have heard on podcasts and what not.
Click to expand...

That's the key right there.

To sell packages and ads, they have to go against there gut and sign 1 or 2 high profile free agents. They need some enthusiasm to sell to potential buyers for the streaming package and potential advertisers.
 





Apparently the folks who own Cambria have reached out in the past as possibly purchasing it, but I don't know if even they have the funds to make it work.
 

OK - let's talk TV. under the old cable bundle, every cable and satellite system that carried BSN paid a rights fee. I know for a fact that my local cable operator was paying $10 a month for every subscriber. and that $10 a month was paid no matter if the subscriber ever watched BSN. So Aunt Tillie, who hasn't watched a baseball game ever, was still paying $10 a month ($120 a year) to BSN.

what a business model - people who don't use your product still have to pay you for it. and still, Diamond Sports (owner of Bally) went bankrupt because of massive debt incurred in the purchase of the RSNs.

Now, the new Twins.TV channel will still be available on cable and satellite systems - but they will not be getting anywhere close to $10/month in fees. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe $3 or $4 a month tops - maybe less. that piece of the pie depends on how many cable systems pick up the channel - AND whether that channel is on basic cable or a higher-priced sports tier. (channels on a sports tier have fewer subscribers and only those subscribers are paying the monthly fee. So Aunt Tillie on basic cable doesn't pay any more.) there will be some ad revenue for the games.

and the streaming package. San Diego was selling 40,000 subscriptions. 40,000 times $100 a year is $4-million.

so IF the Twins can sell 40,000 subscriptions (iffy in the 1st year), you take that $4-million and add in whatever the Twins get in cable and satellite rights fees, plus advertising - MINUS cost of production and cost of a sales force to sell the advertising.

let's be generous and say it adds up to $10-million. Two years ago the Twins got $54-million from BSN. this year (estimate) close to $40-million. that means the Twins are out some $30 to $44-million in local TV revenue compared to what they were getting previously. anyone want to question why the Twins cut the payroll by $30-million?

bottom line - unless a new owner comes in and subsidizes the payroll, the economics do not support any increase in payroll. If you want high-priced free agents, better hope the new owner is willing to lose 10's of millions of $$ a season.
 




GopherGrit said:
Is the new TV really only going to be $4M? Or is that just for streaming?
Click to expand...
That would be the streaming piece. They will still be going to DirecTV, Comcast etc. and getting a certain amount per subscriber to carry the channel. It won't be anything close to what Bally's got, but I think they can easily get to $20 million or so in total revenue between cable/satellite, the streaming subscriptions and the ads, before paying MLB for production costs. So maybe net $15 million or so. Still a big cut from $40 million last year and $54 million in 2023 though.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
OK - let's talk TV. under the old cable bundle, every cable and satellite system that carried BSN paid a rights fee. I know for a fact that my local cable operator was paying $10 a month for every subscriber. and that $10 a month was paid no matter if the subscriber ever watched BSN. So Aunt Tillie, who hasn't watched a baseball game ever, was still paying $10 a month ($120 a year) to BSN.

what a business model - people who don't use your product still have to pay you for it. and still, Diamond Sports (owner of Bally) went bankrupt because of massive debt incurred in the purchase of the RSNs.

Now, the new Twins.TV channel will still be available on cable and satellite systems - but they will not be getting anywhere close to $10/month in fees. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe $3 or $4 a month tops - maybe less. that piece of the pie depends on how many cable systems pick up the channel - AND whether that channel is on basic cable or a higher-priced sports tier. (channels on a sports tier have fewer subscribers and only those subscribers are paying the monthly fee. So Aunt Tillie on basic cable doesn't pay any more.) there will be some ad revenue for the games.

and the streaming package. San Diego was selling 40,000 subscriptions. 40,000 times $100 a year is $4-million.

so IF the Twins can sell 40,000 subscriptions (iffy in the 1st year), you take that $4-million and add in whatever the Twins get in cable and satellite rights fees, plus advertising - MINUS cost of production and cost of a sales force to sell the advertising.

let's be generous and say it adds up to $10-million. Two years ago the Twins got $54-million from BSN. this year (estimate) close to $40-million. that means the Twins are out some $30 to $44-million in local TV revenue compared to what they were getting previously. anyone want to question why the Twins cut the payroll by $30-million?

bottom line - unless a new owner comes in and subsidizes the payroll, the economics do not support any increase in payroll. If you want high-priced free agents, better hope the new owner is willing to lose 10's of millions of $$ a season.
Click to expand...
I think you're a tad conservative. The Twins said there's 4 million potential households in the territory. Conservatively 30% of them still have regular cable or satellite. If 50% of those are on a tier that will carry the Twins channel, that would be 600,000 households. If they get $3/month x 600,000 households x 12 months that would be $21.6 million. Add in $4 million for streaming and you're at $25 million. Perhaps the ad revenue and the production costs are a wash. I think $15-$25 million is a reasonable guess in total.

They had $55 million in TV rights in 2023 and cut $30 million of the payroll last year. I think that's why they're OK saying it will stay the same for 2025.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
OK - let's talk TV. under the old cable bundle, every cable and satellite system that carried BSN paid a rights fee. I know for a fact that my local cable operator was paying $10 a month for every subscriber. and that $10 a month was paid no matter if the subscriber ever watched BSN. So Aunt Tillie, who hasn't watched a baseball game ever, was still paying $10 a month ($120 a year) to BSN.

what a business model - people who don't use your product still have to pay you for it. and still, Diamond Sports (owner of Bally) went bankrupt because of massive debt incurred in the purchase of the RSNs.

Now, the new Twins.TV channel will still be available on cable and satellite systems - but they will not be getting anywhere close to $10/month in fees. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe $3 or $4 a month tops - maybe less. that piece of the pie depends on how many cable systems pick up the channel - AND whether that channel is on basic cable or a higher-priced sports tier. (channels on a sports tier have fewer subscribers and only those subscribers are paying the monthly fee. So Aunt Tillie on basic cable doesn't pay any more.) there will be some ad revenue for the games.

and the streaming package. San Diego was selling 40,000 subscriptions. 40,000 times $100 a year is $4-million.

so IF the Twins can sell 40,000 subscriptions (iffy in the 1st year), you take that $4-million and add in whatever the Twins get in cable and satellite rights fees, plus advertising - MINUS cost of production and cost of a sales force to sell the advertising.

let's be generous and say it adds up to $10-million. Two years ago the Twins got $54-million from BSN. this year (estimate) close to $40-million. that means the Twins are out some $30 to $44-million in local TV revenue compared to what they were getting previously. anyone want to question why the Twins cut the payroll by $30-million?

bottom line - unless a new owner comes in and subsidizes the payroll, the economics do not support any increase in payroll. If you want high-priced free agents, better hope the new owner is willing to lose 10's of millions of $$ a season.
Click to expand...

Additionally, what about money from MLB.TV? Is there a revenue split with the teams (the product)or does MLB.TV keep all the cash? I thought there was some type of revenue split with the teams and I remember the Yankees fighting like heck not to have the local market revenue included in that pot, as the YES network is s profitable and covers multiple sports/content at this point, same setup as MSG and the Mets.

I subscribe to MLB.TV and can watch any out of market games.
 
Last edited:

Gopher_In_NYC said:
Additionally, what about money from MLB.TV? Is there a revenue split with the teams (the product)or does MLB.TV keep all the cash? I thought there was some type of revenue split with the teams and I remember the Yankees fighting like heck not to have the local market revenue included in that pot, as the YES network is s profitable and covers multiple sports/content at this point, same setup as MSG and the Mets.

I subscribe to MLB.TV and can watch any out of market games.
Click to expand...
It's been reported that in 2022, each team got a little over 60 million each just from the national TV contracts. So the Twins took in nearly 115 million just from TV in 2023. Add in ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc., not to mention ad revenue and I have a real, real hard time believing that they lost money that year (or any other year, for that matter).
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
It's been reported that in 2022, each team got a little over 60 million each just from the national TV contracts. So the Twins took in nearly 115 million just from TV in 2023. Add in ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc., not to mention ad revenue and I have a real, real hard time believing that they lost money that year (or any other year, for that matter).
Click to expand...
They have always claimed payroll is ~55% of their costs. So $150 million payroll would imply total operating costs of $270 million.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
It's been reported that in 2022, each team got a little over 60 million each just from the national TV contracts. So the Twins took in nearly 115 million just from TV in 2023. Add in ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc., not to mention ad revenue and I have a real, real hard time believing that they lost money that year (or any other year, for that matter).
Click to expand...

Two things I learned in business -

That when people/companies cry poverty that’s usually not the the case; you rarely hear those companies triumphantly crow about record profits.


There’s lots of neat accounting tricks available to businesses and creative tax lawyers to reduce their profits and to lower their tax liability.

So I have a healthy amount of askance with these types of mea culpas. I keep looking for the Big Bad Wolf.
 

another aspect to consider: was listening to a podcast about ESPN and MLB.

in a nutshell: ESPN's current contract with MLB is for roughly $500-million a year. but there is an "opt-out" clause in the contract which ESPN can trigger after the 2025 season. Here's the problem:

as noted, ESPN is paying a half-billion a year. but MLB made a deal with Apple TV+ for a Friday night game, and Apple is paying $80-million. then MLB made a deal with Roku for the Sunday early game, and Roku is only paying $10-million. national sports-business writers like John Ourand of Puck are reporting that ESPN will likely opt out of its MLB contract in 2025 and the negotiations for a new deal will be difficult.

so it's not out of the question that MLB might see a drop in its national TV revenue. it's all part of the upheaval of the TV landscape as cable TV and RSN's give way to streaming.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
another aspect to consider: was listening to a podcast about ESPN and MLB.

in a nutshell: ESPN's current contract with MLB is for roughly $500-million a year. but there is an "opt-out" clause in the contract which ESPN can trigger after the 2025 season. Here's the problem:

as noted, ESPN is paying a half-billion a year. but MLB made a deal with Apple TV+ for a Friday night game, and Apple is paying $80-million. then MLB made a deal with Roku for the Sunday early game, and Roku is only paying $10-million. national sports-business writers like John Ourand of Puck are reporting that ESPN will likely opt out of its MLB contract in 2025 and the negotiations for a new deal will be difficult.

so it's not out of the question that MLB might see a drop in its national TV revenue. it's all part of the upheaval of the TV landscape as cable TV and RSN's give way to streaming.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

I wonder if we’ll see more deals for up and coming players, like the Brewers and Guards have used effectively. If Wallner the 🫎 continues to improve and stays healthy, for another year, I’d be up for that type of deal with him.

Will also be interesting to see if the mean length of contacts drops as well.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
Apparently the folks who own Cambria have reached out in the past as possibly purchasing it, but I don't know if even they have the funds to make it work.
Click to expand...
No doubt that he is a fan of baseball. However, owning a baseball team or another professional Franchise is on the whole other level of economics. Bill Austin of Starkey also mentioned. He is getting up there as he is 82. Not sure he wants to stomach that trying to make it work in his last years. Needs to stick with what he does best, reaching out to the world for better hearing.
 

Not Twins related, but general baseball related:

We need to normalize plunking batters again.

The styling and posing in the box after a HR is getting ridiculous.

Plunk em…hit them in the ass. Treat the game with respect.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom