BG, to see your facial expressions during this exchange may have driven me to anguished madness. Thank you for not re-creating the visual aspects of this encounter. And for applying your considerable skill to this disturbing topic. Now I'm going to go take sleep-enhancing drugs to avoid thinking about this situation any further.

Oh, and Bert didn't get in the Hall again. &#*$. Yep, drugs are the only way out.

Did anyone notice the fan misery thing on ESP.com? How can we be more miserable than Tampa Bay fans?

espn.com, yeah. What blew me away is that we're more miserable than Royals fans. Someone should tell him that we've actually been pretty content as Twins fans the past couple years. Sure, ups and downs... but three straight division titles? That's not wholly disappointing. Well, maybe it is to Yankee Fans.

its great to see such honest and cutting-edge reporting on the web, but how did you finally get a member of the Twins hierarchy to come clean about things?

Jones eager to play at Wrigley Field: New outfielder looks forward to grass, outfield and day games - http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060110&content_id=1293665&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp

What, no LegoVision footage was captured for this interview? Slackers. j/k Please don't. It would be disturbing in a Tarantino kind of way.

Dear Batgirl,

I've noticed that your posts have become quite dark lately and have contained substantially more child-eating than usual. Is something wrong? Is there anything we can do to help?

Concernedly,
Florida

I sense a continuing pattern to the entries of late, BG. It's as though the dark side of the force is taking hold. Not looking forward to the day when it becomes clear we are all converted to Darth BatGirl's storm troopers.

I had no idea that the Twins organization was into that sort of thing. Might have to cancel my season tickets........

We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. We still have johan. That has been what has been getting me through this offseason i hope it will help.

I like this trend of disturbing content in Beege's posts.

BG, you didn't take that shot like I told you, did you?

I think the off season is really getting to our dearleader Bat-girl

This is why the league is such an unbalanced playing field. In New York, the government is willing to bend over backwards (or forwards) to accomodate the puppy eating desires of the Yankees front office and the orphan-centric cullinary demands of the left side of their infield. They're happy to spend the taxpayers money on a brand new Stadium/orphanage/dog pound to whenever they decide they want one, and the Yankees fans will pay for it in just a few minutes with a small increase in their puppy/orphan meals tax. That and free steroids to those who play on the right side of the Yankees diamond.

Dear c.nonymous

While I understand that people hate the Yankees and think that we have an unfair advantage, Mr Steinbrenner is putting up the money for the new stadium, he may be getting tax breaks, but there are no tax dollars going into the money for the stadium.

Mr Pohlad, who is the richest owner in all of baseball btw, could easily afford to pay for a new stadium like George is doing, but wants the tax payers to buy it for him. That's horse*bleep*. he is 90 and has personal wealth of 3 billion. He should pay for it himself. Pohlad has the money he just refuses to spend any of it on the stadium.

Rip the Yankees for having more money for players if you wish but we are not putting a burden on the city in order to get a new stadium.

p.e.m.

A sign of the coming Apocolypse...

I actually agree with P.E.M!!!!!! (as far as stadium funding is concerned)

But didn't you know? Carl figured out a way to take it with him.

But we're agreed on the puppy/orphan eating issue?

I have never knowningly eaten a puppy/orphan. Period! {points figner angerly}

The reason that the yankees are building the new stadium (and paying by them selfs) and will be able to afford it is A it is freaking new york and they can draw 3 million fans a year revuenes of over 320 million a year where the twins revs are more like 60 -50 million. and B that when they build the new stadium they won't have to pay rev sharing and lux tax for 5 years after the staduim is built. baseball cba http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf it's in there can't remember where but theres' a index so it should be pretty easy to find it's been a year since i read it.

o and Pohlad is paying for 120 mil but yes he could and should build it on he own because then the twins would own the stadium and it would increase the value of the francishe 200% at least probally more.

First, I can't be sure, but I THINK c.anonymous was not entirely serious. 'Cause I'm pretty sure they don't eat puppies in New York, either.

Secondly, leaving stadiums out of the equation for the time being, I do want to point out that in terms of day-to-day operations, it's not the owners' personal wealth that creates an inequality of revenues between various teams. I'm not a fan of Carl Pohlad (to put it mildly) but I do get tired of hearing how wealthy he is and how he could afford to do this or that. To the best of my knowledge, Steinbrenner's personal wealth is not the source of the team's enormous budget, rather, it is due to revenues that are generated based on population base, tv rights, etc. Certain teams have advantages due to the economics of their markets, not the personal wealth of the owners.

As for the stadiums, I'm not fully informed, but I'm fairly confident George is not writing a personal check for $800 mil.

Personally, I do believe that, since Pohlad is the owner of the Twins and a new stadium will increase both the overall worth of the team as an asset and its profitability on an ongoing basis, it makes sense to expect him to put money into the deal -- in fact it seems like a good investment to me if the alternative is to never get a new ballpark and therefore see the worth of your asset plummet. But let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

P.S. Paul basically beat me to this but thought I'd post it anyway for those of you who prefer punctuation.

I'm sorry... but we're expecting a 90-year-old man to make a decision based on future profit? This is a man who made his fortune delivering forclosure notices to family farms during the Depression. I'm hoping for a new stadium, of course, but even if it doesn't happen I'm still happier now than in the 'studio ball' days with franchise saviors Mike Trombley and Chip Hale.

On an unrelated note, does anyone know if the Twins are doing Bring Your Dog to the Park night this year?

MyGrover is absolutely right.

He's the sweetest man to me in the elevator, but boy do I strongly dislike him. Just the other day I was wearing a ratty old Twins cap from work and he told me I need a brand new one and I should come to his floor the next day and get one.

I like my old ratty cap, thanks anyway Mr. Pohlad.

Yes the 800 million for the New Yankee Stadium isn't coming out of George's pocket as much as the corp. of the Yankees, but there is not one dollar of that coming from public money. I have no idea what real estate values or constrution costs are in Minn, but how much would it cost to build the stadium there 350 million ? Somewhere near that number ? I mean if you have 3 billion and your investment can benefit from putting out 350 million plus the fact that the good will it send to Twins fans,it should be more then worth it to Mr Pohlad.

If Carl decides tomorrow to build the damn thing himself, he would change his image of old, tight butt, rich guy, to old, nice rich guy that made sure the Twins stayed in Minn, imo

p.e.m.

We hate rich people in this state. Our legislators probably wouldn't allow him to build his own stadium, because he'd profit from it. Either that or they'd pass some tax that allows them to get their grimey paws on as much as possible. And the bottom line is, taking NY out of the equation, where else are owners picking up the entire tab on stadiums? Why does it have to be that way here?

As much as it would suck for the Twins to leave, and as much as I want them to have a new stadium so we all could be happy, I find myself rooting for the team to leave quite a bit lately. For one, I want to see all these stadium opponents and how happy they are when the team is gone. How happy will the state be when they lose the money the team brought in? How long will it take for everyone in the state (legislature included) to decide that we absolutely have to have a baseball team in MN (think MN Wild). Think how much more expensive it will be then, if MLB even allowed another team to come here. If I were MLB I wouldn't.

And finally, after 15 years of being jerked around, begging the state not to build them a stadium, but to help them build a stadium, eventually the team has to say enough is enough, and move on so the team can be successful. I would be happy for the team when that day comes. And that day is coming. Rest assurred.

PEM,

I've heard it's about $475M or so, depending on what week you look at the estimates. There are a few things to remember:
1. The stadium will benefit the city's (and state's) economy and tax revenue, so there is a ROI for the city as well as the club.
2. The stadium would increase the value of the Twins, but also reduce the size of the market (since any potential owners would be tied to the Twin Cities).
3. Even if Pohlad builds the stadium himself then donates half of his personal wealth to charity, I will still think Pohlad's an old, tight-butt rich guy. God can forgive him for the late 90s, but I don't have to.

FL

Eating orphans? I didn't know Jonathan Swift worked for the Twins...

I love Minnesota and will never leave. I would prefer that Carl build his own stadium, but I know that will not happen. So I would like to see my tax money spent on something I might enjoy, just once. Why do I feel so guilty about that? Is it bred into me? If you want taxes spent on something other than kids or the downtrodden, should you feel this guilty? I promise I will not ask for anything, ever again. Ever. I promise. This can be my birthday, and Christmas present. Please.

I just want to bring my kids to an outdoor game, or have a few beers at a game with my friends.

FWIW

The Philadelphia Flyers buitl their own stadium in the late 90s, before they were owned by Comcast Cable, they even charged the Sixers rent. The only other guy I know that hasn't demend tax money is the owner of the KC Royals. He doesn't want a new stadium or the pressure to spend money it take to justify the taxes, but you are right. Why would any owner pay if someone else would build it for them ... see Baltimore Ravens/Clev Browns.

The Jets are trying to get a free stadium in NYC and they aren't having an easy time of getting one. The olympics went to Londaon because NYC wouldn't build the Jets a stadium (would have been used for Oly)

p.e.m.

Obviously I'm not saying it's never been done before where the team/owner foots the entire bill. Robert Kraft with the New England Patriots is another example. My point simply is that the norm throughout the sporting horizon is to have public funds a part of new stadium financing. I believe PEM is agreeing with me here, I just wanted to clarify.

Yet for some reason, the great people of MN (of which I am one, and proud of it thank you) believe all their sports franchises owe them something. That they should get something for free that 95% of the rest of the country doesn't. Why is that? Do we think we're better or smarter than the rest of the people in the country? To some extent I think that's the case, the people in charge up here believe they have everything figured out. Yet the only thing I can see that they have figured out at all is how to screw up a perfectly good stadium plan.

word smith i am in third grade. JK But, yeah i should use punctuation. and such i am just a lazy person i know that. Thanks for writing it agian because it looks prettier when you do use punctuation and people will probally read then.

ps i thought useing word smith as your tag was the funniest thing i've read in the posts this year awesome.

There were a lot more issues in the olympics going to London than just the West Side Stadium. Even with the stadium, NYC was a pretty big dark horse in that race.

I will not allow the puppy eating to continue. Someone has to stop this hate of puppies it cannot continue on I will be the defender of all puppies. It is time for someone to stand up and say we will not stand for this anymore that man is I. And if the puppy eating strike me down two will take my place. You may be asking yourself how can we stand up to such people. Well I will tell you how I am going to stand up I went over to the academic advisors and changed my major to sports Admisionsstion in Two years I will take the fight to puppy eaters and fight them form the inside. I may never be seen again. To the rest of you Good Night and Good luck

Oh, the puppyity.

:O @ BG

and OMG Kristie.. too funny!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!

Just so I'm clear, paul... eating orphans is OK, though, right?

Yeah the orphan eating is cool with me i'm fighting for the puppies.

It's easy to say that evil George is putting up his own money but most of that money is coming from the YES network which pumps plenty of money back to the Yanks.

Does anyone remember Victory Sports? Time-Warner and Fox Sports basically joined forces to prevent the Twins from having a network that would help the bottom line. I don't remember George having to fight for his network. I don't remember Comcast fighting with the White Sox oh that's right because they joined forces.

Tax breaks are not the only difference between the Twins and the Yanks and George isn't using just his personal wealth to build a stadium. If he were he would be Saint George.

I believe the deal that expired on 12/31/05 said that the city would own the land if not the stadium that sat ontop of it. To me that is more than just helping the rich build a stadium it is an investment on the city infrustructure.

As for taxes, just remember everytime a new library gets government money (Mpls) or a theater gets government money, or the zoo or..... that is money that we are happy to give away that could have helped the poor. Its silly to oppose the stadium b/c there is "better" or "more important" issues that need your tax dollars.

Guess what your tax dollars are already going to things other than eliminating poverty or other similar issues. If millions of dollars can go to building a transit hub at the MOA or to build a new library why not a stadium?

Really I don't understand why not.

Dear Caluofmn

George had a major fight with Cablevision over the YES network. Cablevision wouldn't offer or charged to offer YES to most of the area it served. I know its hard to believe but there are a lot of people in NY that hate the yankees too.

p.e.m.

PEM,
I really did not know that. Thank you for playing myth buster for me.

Dear Mr. Mike,

I believe they're called "Mets fans?"

Love,
BG

>>he told me I need a brand new one and I should come to his floor the next day and get one.

Did you ask him how much he was charging for it?

Now I'm getting really bummed out. Making meals of puppies and orphans, Steinbrenner vs. Pohlad, Twins unhappy with the dome lease and stuff, imagining loosing our team. We'd be a state without baseball.
Then I'd have to move. And where would that be? Certainly not N.Y. The only other team I sometimes resonate with is Seattle and it is grey there too much. And it is too late for me to get smitten over another team. And I dont want to.
Is there any good news for Twins fans? bleak, dark,and sucky is what it is today.

Unhappily,

kal

Thank goodness...a stat-free comment section.

And for the record, I would never eat puppies. Or orphans.

bubblemint

Dear BG,

I guess I failed the test. I am not light hearted enough to get past the notion of puppy or orphan eating. I thought I could make light of just about anything, but I guess I can't. The mere concept just leaves me with a sick feeling. For the first time since I started coming here, I had to stop reading before I came to the end of one of your creations.

One of my Christmas presents was a Far Side book in which Gary Larsen explains all the cartoons that inspired hate mail, among other things. Now I love the Far Side. But I have to admit some of the cartoons that inspired hate mail deserved it. One of them depicted a group of alligators gathered around a bucket, and the caption said, "Bobbing for puppies." Of course, this inspired a lot of hate mail. The only thing Larsen wrote in response was, "You should have seen the first draft. It said, 'Bobbing for babies.'" I have to admit I wouldn't find either cartoon funny, which only proves my humor sensibilities have limits.

I don't know what this means. I still read Far Side books. And I will still come to your site every day. But today's installment was revolting to me.

Kind regards,

cmathewson

speedy: it's really simple. Private businesses can fund their own business ventures. It has nothing to do with hating rich people.

cmathewson -- Probably you weren't a big fan of Jonathan Swift, either.

Parody with a point can frequently be gruesome. But it's not merely meant to be funny (although it usually is) -- it's meant to get a message across.

BG, trust me here -- anyone who read this got the message.

So, has anybody heard what the twinsfest schedule is this year? usually they have it up by now....

Parody with a point can frequently be gruesome.

That's just it. If I can't even bear the thought of eating puppies or orphans, I never get the chance to get the message. So excuse my obtuseness here, but just what is the message?

Is it that the Twins brass is making unreasonable demands of the MSFC? If so, I certainly don't agree. The commission forced the Twins into a lease that gives the Vikings all the suite revenue and a sizeable portion of the concession revenue. How is that fair?

And now the commission is trying to say the Twins have a lease when they clearly don't. Yes, they had a lease when contraction was on the table (thank goodness). But that was its last year. Since then, they've operated without a lease, and the commission has not improved their deal. In fact the commission forbid the team from using a cool new feature of the stadium by caprice and took away prime seats in the process.

The Twins have tried to negotiate a deal that allows them to get a fair share of stadium revenues, but the commission won't budge. In my mind, the only recourse is the courts.

And one more thing. Why is a public entity like the MSFC immune from criticism here? They have bungled plenty of stuff over the years. Remember that $10 million plaza? It had to be torn down a year after it was built to make room for light rail. How about waiting until the turf was three years past its useful life and then installing new turf at the last minute so that it was virtually unplayable for a month, causing several injuries in the process? How about scheduling conflicts that force a team contending for the division championship to suspend one of its games? How about scheduling so many motocross, monster truck, and snowmobile races in the dome that the whole place became a grimy mess?

When it comes to the stadium mess, nobody has fingered one of the prime culprits here. Their chief crime is negotiating a lease with the Vikings that gives its GM at the time (Mike Lynne) 25 % of all suite revenue for life (including revenue that could help the Twins). The guy makes more money than Mike Radcliff just on the Twins suite revenue and he's never been involved with the team.

If I'm going to have my sensibilities assaulted, I at least want it to be a cause that everyone can agree on, like how FEMA handled Katrina. Then again, we didn't need parody when the truth was right there for us to see.

I'm just winging it, but I'd say the point is that the unreasonable, highly-self-centered demands on the higher-ups in this issue (all of them) are going to completely screw the innocents who just want to watch baseball.

My husband frequently uses puppy-kicking as an analogy. It's damned effective. Does that mean he advocates puppy-kicking? Of course not. Do people get uncomfortable when he talks about it? Maybe they should. Helps to get the point that much deeper.

It's a humor blog with a particularly skewering post. Let's not take it too seriously, shall we?

That should be "of the higher-ups", not "on the higher-ups".

Let me explain...
no no, it would take too long.
Let me sum up:
Only people evil enough to commit the gruesome atrocities which offend your sensabilities would consider moving the Twins. I believe that's the hidden point behind the original post.

Special thanks to the Spaniard.

Thank you Inigo.

True Love, there can never be a more noble cause than that.

I would suffer the machine, not to mention witnessing puppy or orphan eating, to keep my true love in the state. And if the Humperdink commission suffers in the process, so much the better.

That's it!! That's what I'll do. My birthday is April 10th. . . I'll just ask C.P. for a new stadium. Perfect. Expect new digs by next year.

out of topic: my wife's bday is also April 10.

As an ethics professor and a Twins fan, I always appreciate a thread that is so packed with ethical issues.

Needless to say, puppy and orphan eating is wrong. Right?

As for the stadium, before moving here, I previously admired the citizens and politicians of Minnesota for standing firm against "welfare for the rich," but now I find that argument spurious. In fact, our tax dollars and/or incentives are constantly going to support private enterprises - just check out what the Gov will do to keep the Ford plant in St Paul. Recently, MnDOT completed a brand-new interchange on I-94 outside St Cloud - it was a massive and expensive project for a whole new street (called "opportunity Drive"!), the sole purpose of which is to provide easy interstate access to companies locating in the burgeoning business park (filled with private businesses) right at the exit. The same applies to an otherwise-useless rerouting and widening of MN hwy 23 from 94 to Richmond. Moreover, the argument that "not everyone uses a Twins stadium" is also spurious - the same could be said about libraries, state parks, snowmobile trails, lakes, etc.

So the moral principle of "no state support for private enterprises" is of no use. The real question is: what do we as a state want to support? How do we order our desires for our state? Personally, outdoor baseball is worth more to me than any number of unfilled potholes...

...and would that have meant we could have signed Koskos...???

Thank you Twinsprof. I suspect our paths have crossed before. I was a philosophy student at both St. Cloud State (undergrad) and the U of M (grad school).

I can think of hundreds of "public works" projects that "required" public funds and only benefited private companies, their employees, and their clients. The airport expansion and a $800 million bailout for Northwest airlines comes to mind. All this public money was poured into a company because it was deemed necessary to have a strong carrier with a hub in Minnesota. And how good of stewards of those public funds have the keepers of that private enterprise been?

In fact, the state doesn't bat an eye to fund infrastructure for economic development, whether the companies' executives are billionaires or not, whether live out of state or not, whether they pay themselves countless millions of dollars while skimping on their employee compensation or not.

So why is a relatively small project that requires no state money for a company that does more charitable work than most and is run by instate executives who pay themselves little while paying their employees very well and does untold good to millions of state residents and the state's economy as a whole considered to be such a political hot potato?

I wish anyone who is anti stadium in MN would read those last 2 entires. I have to believe that a reasonable person would have to at least examine their position on the issue.

Great entries.

I'd like to consider myself a reasonable person, but my anti-stadium stance has nothing to do with some vague "moral" conviction against welfare for the rich. It's quite simple. If you want to raise 250 million dollars of public money to build a baseball stadium after years of cutting/freezing education spending, among various other social programs, I take issue with your priorities.

I love baseball. I love the twins. But I'm perfectly willing to keep the twins in the dome and spend our public monies on things you might term the "greater good." Yes, the twins probably need to restructure the way that dome revenues are distributed. No, the dome isn't a great baseball stadium. But there's a whole list of things I would rather see MN spend tax dollars on before we start building more stadiums.

The legislative incompetence in Minnesota is well documented. But most people's tax dollars would not have been used in the last proposal. No money that would have been spent on more important things like education would have been diverted. There really is no acceptable excuse for the legislature dropping the ball last year.

This coming year is the pivotal year. I'm not a political expert, but The lawsuit and all that seems to just be political jockey on the twins part. If a stadium isn't built next session, and an anti-stadium government is elected next november, the twins are gone.

Driving around Grand forks last night after a movie my friend wanted to stop at a Chinese restaurant and eat needless to say I refused.

It's kind of like saying that the money that Americans waste on candy bars in a year would be sufficient to eradicate malaria in Africa. Therefore, let's stop selling candy bars. The thing that's missing is, how does the money that would have gone to candy bars get to Africa? We'll all be going through chocolate withdrawal, but they'll also all still be dying of malaria.

Or, not. That's the best I could come up with on short notice.

Well, as I've likely said here before - if one of (if not the) biggest issue is the lease agreement, where is the sense in asking the same people who gave you the bad lease to give you a new stadium and a good lease?

By the way, before last years proposal, I would've entirely agreed with chapel. But the way things are going right now, it looks like Minnesota's best chance at having a pro team long term is to attract the marlins after the twins leave. And the only owner in baseball worse than Pohlad is Jeff Loria.

WordSmith, it is kind of like that. Except that the body collecting revenue from candy bar sales has the power (and responsiblity!) to spend that money on malaria vaccinations.

And I understand how the taxation would not siphon money away from other programs, or in any way affect what is or is not funded by the state. That doesn't change, however, that we (on this site, anyway) have an uproar to demand the right to pay for a new twins stadium and are conspicuously silent about our underfunded social services. The fact that the two are not directly connected is really irrelevant. If we're willing to pay to keep our candy bars in state, shouldn't we be willing to pay keep malaria out of public schools? (And shouldn't we demand it?)

In a perfect world, we could afford everything, chapel. It's all about priorities. And I certainly don't disagree with your priorities to favor education first. But a good revue of the public policy surrounding all bills since Governor Carlson took office would reveal that the state's priorities favor business interestes ahead of everything else, including education. The one notable exception to this policy direction is the Twins.

When the antistadium people complain about a lack of funding for education, or welfare, or other social program, they rearly discuss the fact that we've spent more than $1 billion on the airport since the Twins first asked for some state help ina stadium solution, or that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new roads for the Mall of America, or that we've spent billions of dollars for other economic development projects, including ethenol plants and other marginal investments.

This economic development program is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars siphoned away from education funding in the last 12 years to support other private interests. Why the outrage against a stadium when all these other programs are going on right under our noses?

Actually, cm, it's a logical fallacy to suggest that we, as a population, could afford everything, even in a perfect world. "Value" loses meaning as soon as nothing is unattainable. But I don't want to argue semantics with you. You're absolutely right that policy has been designed to favor economic interests above just about anything else. But there are a couple of points that don't justify, in my opinion, a new stadium.
1. Why can't we try to change our policy now? Simply because we've done it before is not justification for continuing it now. Obviously, this isn't a very likely outcome, but I think it's worth trying.
2. While we have subsidized things like the airport and the mall, those are substantively and demonstrably different from the twins. We assumed $800 million of Northwest debt to keep MSP a Northwest hub (evidently, this was not as effective in the long term as we might have hoped). That's a huge amount of money, but we did it to keep a large number of NW flights coming through the cities. That brings out of state money into the state. It also increases the number of jobs for MN residents because people have to move the luggage, restock the planes and generally manage the influx of people. Ever notice how prices on everything is astronomically high at airports? Wonder where that money goes? As opposed to overpriced food at the dome, food at the airports is overpriced because it's taxed like crazy, because the majority of people who have layovers there (and are therefore purchasing things) are from out of state.
Same thing goes for the mall. Not, obviously, the higher taxes, but it's a tourist attraction (with more drawing power than the dome) and it provides a large number of jobs for residents. Building roads around the mall and airport also helps.
On the other hand, the twins are an extraordinarily wealthy organization that employs relatively few people, many of whom are paid at exorbitant rates. The main value that the twins bring residents is entertainment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outraged at the idea; It just doesn't make sense to me.

How about a compromise? Leave the dome where it is. Keep the twins in the dome. Let the twins negotiate a reasonable lease. But the catch is this- knock the top off of the dome, rip up the carpet and grow some grass. I'm no engineer, but it's probably cheaper than building a new stadium. Plus, then I wouldn't have to sit inside to watch the twins play.

I think that most of the posts so far in this thread have made really good points, but my issue with public financing the stadium is that if we can raise the tax in Hennepin County by .015% for a stadium, why can't we do that for other things? I went to a crowded, innercity high school in Mpls, and we frequently had people sharing chairs in classrooms meant for 25 students that had up to 40 ppl in them. i just think that a stadium is not as important as good education, health care, etc. if we raise taxes, even minisculy, it should be for a better cause (although baseball is a pretty good cause: don't get me wrong, i love the twins.)

I would argue that a stadium that does the Twins justice is every bit as attractive to the state, it's residents, and tourists as the Mall. Think of what Camden Yards did for Baltimore and you might see that a good baseball stadium is in the same league as the Megasprawl.

But if you want another example, I could cite you Excel Energy Center as an exactly comparable economic development project funded (not financed, funded) in large part by the state since the Twins first asked for state help.

And no, the Metrodome cannot be refit for baseball. It was designed as a football stadium and its fundamental flaw (the right field wall) would remain in any remodeling, unless you tore the thing down and started over. That would cost more than building on the site proposed in the 2005 chapter of the Twins stadium frustration book.

Finally, you can't be arguing against all state funding for infrastructure that benefits businesses unless you want us to really turn into a cold Omaha. We compete with other states (and other countries in the global economy) for businesses and we must play the game or we will lose the game. That is why Gov Timmy is bending over forwards in Dearborn to give Ford more state subsidies.

The fact remains, a new stadium for the Twins would not take anything away from education, though it might curtail other economic development activities for, say, the Vikings. And, unless the Gov starts treating this deal like he's treating the Ford deal or like he treated the IBM deal or ay other deal that promotes jobs in Minnesota, the state will lose this competition to New Jersey.

Wow...this is some good stuff. But Speedy, in particular, hit it right on the head - Minnesotans hate and distrust rich people, and would rather preach incessantly in order to prove that they're not a bunch of rubes willing to be taken to the cleaners by some billionaire than be reasonable and listen to the proposals that have been presented regarding the Twins stadium. Minnesotans love pontificating about how they're not as gullible as citizens in other states who have subsidized stadiums, about how they refuse to give in to big business, about how they won't spend money that could be spent on education or environmental protection or deer preservation to build a stadium that will only serve that big, mean ol' money-grubbing Carl Pohlad. The most amusing thing to me is that, save quite a few of the denizens of this particular establishment, most are so busy climbing up onto the soapbox that they haven't even bothered looking at the deals that have been proffered. What terrifies me is that the deal probably won't ever be any better than this last one was - and this one died. The citizens of Minnesota may just drive the Twins away after all...and then they'll all complain and beg for another team. But Minnesotans love to complain, so maybe that'll make up for the lack of something to do on a steamy August evening.

Quickly, a few points.
1. Pointing out that we have had a certain policy for a span of time is not justification of maintaining that policy if you think it is flawed.
2. Though the compromise proposal was a joke, I would still argue that the fundamental flaw of the dome is the ceiling. You know, the fact that there is one.
3. It's really surprising because it's illogical, but there's actually substantial evidence that legislation for increased wages, benefits, more stringent environmental protection, or higher corporate taxes actually leave only in very extreme cases. It's a huge pain to move a franchise, even a franchise like the twins that comes with relatively mobile workers and probably nets a stadium publicly financed elsewhere. Interesting book on the topic of teams holding cities "hostage" _Stadium Games_ by Jay Weiner.
4. Call me a denizen, or even a rich-person hater, but I'm really not too "terrified" by the idea of the twins leaving. Honestly, if that's the worst thing that happens to me in the next decade, I'll be pretty happy. And I consider myself a pretty big fan (consider: I'm on bat-girl in January).

There's no need to get upset, I simply think we need to reassess our priorities.

cmathewson and chapel- you are undoubtedly much more educated than myself. I work in the public sector, and I can only speak to my personal experiences.

I feel (and I have to assume there are more like me) that Minnesota education and social services are not suffering from a lack of funding. They are suffering from a lack of efficiency. They are terribly important to our well-being as a state, but throwing more money at them is not the answer. If we added a .015% sales tax in Hennepin County to be earmarked only for education and welfare or healthcare it would make almost no difference in the effectiveness of those programs. But it could get a outdoor stadium built. So I say build the stadium. And have a beer.

Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with cmathewson or chapel. I just wanted to make a point that some people in Hennepin County and the rest of Minnesota would prefer that, just once, some of our huge tax budget go towards something we could enjoy. Maybe it doesn't fit perfectly into our personal Democratic or Republican ideologies, but we can set them aside this once to enjoy a beer in the sun and watch the Chairman block the plate.

"Think of what Camden Yards did for Baltimore and you might see that a good baseball stadium is in the same league as the Megasprawl."

Heh. Right.

Last one. I promise.

First of all, I'm not upset. Just passionate about keeping my true love (the Twins). My writing tends to get sharp and incisive when it comes from a passionate place. No offense intended.

1. I don't think the policy is flawed. It's what keeps me in beans and rice. I think education is the top priority in part because it's the best way for our state to compete in the global economy. But we also have to compete in other ways, including giving good deals to companies that want to develop more business here. These deals actually net the state more tax revenue in the long run than the short-run investment in tax incentives or development costs. In that sense, the state is no different than a venture capital firm.

2. Yes the ceiling is its biggest flaw. But architecturally, the shape of the stadium is its biggest flaw from a baseball perspective. That can't be changes, whereas you could just rip the roof off.

3. I question your evidence. The global economy has changed much since some of those studies came out. If you watch Now at all, you know what I mean. And I read Weiner's book. It's not applicaable to the current situation because baseball has changed in fundamental ways and so has the political climate.

4. I suspect that's where we disagree the most. I will feel like I did when my dad died on my wedding night if the Twins leave.

The current situation is not sustainable, even if the Humperdink commission gives the Twins a better deal. It's only a matter of time before the Twins will be gone unless something is done soon. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. If we had done it 12 years ago, it would have cost one quarter of what next year's deal will cost. At some point, we simply won't have enough financing to do a deal. Then it'll be over. I want to be proactive to prevent that as long as I have strength in my fingers.

Adidasman, I couldn't have said it any better. The favorite pasttime of Minnesotans? Complaining.

And chapel, understand that I find nothing wrong with anything you have said. You are standing behind what you believe is important. And that is commendable. But you also need to realize that not everyone has priorities that stack up exactly as yours do. To some, a Twins stadium is just as important, if not more, than extra money for any other program. Especially after trying for 12 years.

No one wants education to suffer as a result of a stadium or any other plan. But it gets frustrating to some, myself included, that everytime a proposal is made that will increase any tax, so many jump to the pulpit and say "Yes, this is a great idea! But instead of for it's intended purpose, let's apply it to education!" As important as education is, there has to be room for other things as well.

Let me finish by saying that this is by far the most respectful, thought-provoking debate on the stadium issue I have ever seen and read. You are all to be commended. Bravo!

Looks like non-tendering Balfour wasn't the greatest idea after all...

One-year deal with the Reds.

What's this? A baseball related post? LOL!

Are we really going to miss Grant Balfour? I mean, did he even see time in a game last year? Not to mention I think Gardy wanted to choke the guy for a large majority of the season, because of his wishy-washy stance on his own health. I certainly believe he's a replacable entity.

I believe if the Twins don't get a new stadium they will leave when they are legally able.

What will be really sad and ironic is all the smiles and celebration when MN gets a new baseball team after a decade or so.

I think a new stadium would attract out of state money just like the MOA. Maybe even more after Snoopy leaves town.

Education and social services are more important but as someone mentioned those 3 cents for every 20 spent in Hennipen county won't solve those problems. And for those who say yes but it would help, I agree it might but those are not the choices. The choices are spend the money and keep the Twins plus get a new stadium or don't and lose the team.

If you want to increase taxes to help eliminate social ills then let your elected officials know.
But right now no money is being taken away from the social programs we feel are important and if you look at the books over the last 12 years these same programs are losing funding even without helping the Twins get a stadium built.

I say all this even though I'm happy to fly half way across the country to see my beloved Twins in the Dome. I have so many fond memories of the Dome that I will be sad even if the Twins do get a new home. But regardless of which stadium they play in, it would be a shame if it's not in MN.

Finally remember it will cost the state alot more when they are trying to lure the MLB back to MN.

Speedy, cm and cal,
I believe we've reached an impasse. I realize not everyone shares the same priorities I do. I wouldn't spend time debating if they did, because there wouldn't be anyone for me to convince. But,
1. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the twins will leave if we don't build them a stadium. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we'll find out.
2. I'm not trying to clap my hands every time there's a suggestion to raise taxes but turn around to say we should use it for something "better." However, social services, like education are more essential, in my opinon to the welfare of the state in general.

So I apologize to anyone I've frustrated. I will be happy to fully finance any stadium that MN teams want just as soon as some other things I consider more essential have been attended to.
Have a lovely evening.

A great debate and well reasoned arguments all around.

That said, I have NO doubt that the Twins WILL leave Minnesota without a new stadium deal. I'll still be a fan and I'll still make the trip to whatever city/state they land to see games.

Since I don't live in MN any more, I don't have a say in whether my tax dollars are used for a stadium. I'll leave that decision to those of you who do have tax dollars at stake.

But if you really don't think they would ever leave, I think you'll find yourself very wrong by 2007.

all i have to say is that money won't solve the education problem and even if it would how much money would it take 1 billion more who nows. the education system much like social sercutiy it needs a complete make over. I just want you to now this is porbally coming form the person who was most recently in high school. It takes better teachers not just more books and classrooms while those are needed they can be over come with good teachers. In my highschool all you have to do to find out who the good teachers were to look at the teacher who kids were trying to switch to. While bad teachers were held on to by teacher tenure and the school counldn't get rid of them. o and lets biuld a new Stadium all ready i'd put up with all the bad teachers in the world for my Twins.

Chapel,

I don't think you should misinterpret anyones arguements as anger. BG is a happy place, ill-will is not allowed. Besides, it takes guts to take a position that you know will be unpopular. That said, you're wrong about "priorities". This isn't about priorities. This isn't your personal checkbook, where you say "I have $3000 to donate to charity this year, what is the highest priority." This is more like the company that says "I have $3000 for investments. Which will provide the highest return."

Every additional dollar thrown at social services will have a certain payback, be it financially or socially. Every dollar thrown at business development (like the stadium) has a payback as well, especially considering that the alternative is no baseball, not baseball somewhere else. The city, county and state need to estimate how much money the Twins provide the economy, both in jobs/GDP created and in taxes (all the taxes on those Dome Dogs and ticket sales, 7% state income tax on Bradke's salary, taxes on the incomes of every groundskeeper, beer vendor, post-game bar owner, parking ramp attendant, etc., etc.) over a 10 year period. If it is a profitable venture (if the Twins will create more than the $250M they are asking for) then the government should pay for the investment.

You will find that the government will PROFIT from the Twins maintaining in MN. In other words, if you pay an extra .015 you will receive MORE than .015 in extra tax revenue available for funding social services, education, those "left turn lane" signs and snow removal in Duluth. In addition to all the joy the Twins will bring you, the jobs they create and the revenue they bring to sporting goods stores all over the midwest, they help PAY for social services.

So, don't support the Twins stadium because the Twins are more important than education. Support it because if they remain in MN, there will be MORE money for education.

FL

Can we send these posts along to the Strib or the legislature somehow?

It is a highly contested factual issue about the supposed economic benefits brought by new stadiums - that said, the twins will not be playing in the Dome in twnety years. They will either be playing in a new stadium here or playing in a new stadium somewhere else... and then we will do MN Wild II: Electric Boogaloo, and build a stadium for the new "Minnesota Loons." Give me a new ballpark now for our Twins.

Something else should be added: hopefully the recent building spat of MLB stadiums will result in ballparks that will age gracefully and so (like Wrigley) be around in 100 years or so. It is sad that so many of the 60s-80s stadiums were torn down while still useful (the waste!)... but that was because they were bad stadiums in the first place, the same reason astroturf was ripped out of most of them before they were torn down. If we actually build something beautiful, well-located (i.e. on transit), and well-maintained, we will have something that will last. That sort of civic beauty ought not to come at the expense of education (that's why I tend to favor higher taxes all around - how about bumping up that top state income tax bracket up to 8.5%?) or state conservation efforts or transit, but it is something worthwhile.

BG:

Close, but you have it backwards.

The Twins want the lease declared expired because the Metrodome Commission insists on opening a puppy eating concession in the Twins name (instead of its own), even though the Commission is going to keep 100% of the revenue from sales.

They're going to serve "Pommeranian a la Pohlad" and "Carl Spaniel a la mode", then branch out to "Gardy Grillers" when summer arrives - you don't want to see what goes into making a "Gardy Griller" .... yeech!!!

The Commission's argument is real obvious - "The Lease never ends, therefore we (us, the state, etc.) never have to get serious about the stadium issue."

I'm hoping the Twins win - the only way the Legislature will ever move is if the threat of losing the team is very, very real and they clearly don't take seriously right now.