I don't know, after last year and the almost-but-not-quite-exciting offseason, there's still a lot of ifs for 2006.

IF Tony B doesn't suck too much. (I'm still in denial that he'll actually be a Twin come May)

IF RonDL stays healthy.

IF the Chairman and the Doctor become consistent RBI threats.

IF Baker and/or Liriano becomes a solid MLB starter.

IF Kyle decides that being a solid #4 starter is worthy of his greatness.

IF the President and Veep have no backslide at all, and actually improve.

IF the rest of the bullpen continues to put up absurd numbers.

There's just too many ifs to go around. I think ALL of them have to play out for the Twins to contend.

On the other hand, I'm all NSMC about Castillo, and the thought of Cuddles and Leeeewww coming off the bench instead of starting is a plus. At the same time, the guys ahead of them are sooo uncertain, can we really expect that these guys won't start more than half the games? Lew in the #3 spot is not a thing of beauty.

Oh, and...

Yeah Steelers!

(I spent some of my formative years there during the glory days)

Guess I need to make my first trek to Twin Cities this summer to see baseball in the dome--debating on waiting another year--but better to be safe than sorry.

The article mentioned the dreaded "C" word--is that a possibility.

DAM

BG, I can understand your feelings and maybe it's just my business background coming through, but I have never felt that Pohlad tried to kill the team. On the contrary, I think he has (a) saved the team from moving to Florida, and (b) tried several times to find a way to get a stadium built to keep the team in Minn.

I find it ironic that when talk of a team moving (or contracting) starts out, communities are all about "hey you cant do that to OUR team, it belongs to us as much as it does the owner because we're the people who support it", but when it comes to financing a stadium to keep the team in the state, those same voices come out with "we shouldn't have to spend our tax money to benefit HIS team, he's a billionaire so let HIM pay for the stadium by himself."

It will be a sad day when the team of my youth no longer exists, but there can be no doubt that we're a significant step closer to that today and I think it's terribly unfair to lay all the blame at the feet of Carl Pohlad.

e-9, maybe it's just that I'm always optimistic in February but I don't see all of those "IFs" as being so unlikely.

Batista wasn't my first (or even 5th) choice for a 3B pickup but, really, how good does he have to be to be an improvement over last year?

Rondell should have a good chance of staying healthier than usual by being a full time DH.

Mauer is already an RBI threat if someone manages to get on base and I can't imagine Morneau being worse than last year.

Between Baker and Liriano, I'll be shocked if the Twins don't end up with one legit middle of the rotation quality starting pitcher.

I predict Lohse will be the 5th starter by the All Star break, if he's even still around. I smell mid season trade bait.

I just don't let myself imagine Santana or Nathan slipping and the rest of the pitching staff should be deep enough to cover up for anyone else's temporary backslides.

This team should be competitive and in the Twins current financial situation, I don't think you can ask for more than that going in to the season. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Bottom Line If the Twins score 780 to 800 runs instead of 680 We should be in contention.

JC makes an excellent point. And I am a looooong time Twins fan (I watched the old Met get built). But it is not the kid next door/home town team. Period. The Twins stand to make buckets of money and see their value increase significantly in a new park. And if you don't think that is more important to them than their fans, I feel sorry for you. I would like to see a new stadium as much as anyone. I just wish the Twins would admit to the real reasons behind the push. If the Twins were so concerned about the ordinary fan, the ordinary fan would be able to purchase a decent seat to a ballgame right now. Try it, see for yourself.

Friday on ESPN radio, Rob Neyer said the Twins were the team he was most interested in for 2006, because of their pitching staff and the acquistions of Rondell White and Luis Castillo. Neyer called going from Luis Rivas to Castillo the single biggest improvement in a starter in all of baseball.

Well, I do lay most of the blame on Pohlad, and it’s not based on the simplistic premise that “He’s a billionaire, he can afford to build a stadium himself.” Personally I support public funding for a ballpark and I get impatient with people who are so opposed to it in principal that they now seem incapable of recognizing a reasonable deal when they see it. However, I understand how we got to that point around here, and I lay the blame squarely on Pohlad. I truly believe that if he had started out the process with a reasonable deal and negotiated in good faith, we would be in a totally different place right now. Instead, he jumped right out of the gate with a ludicrous proposal that included virtually nothing from the Twins and was backed by bogus threats of selling and moving the team. When that didn’t succeed he played the contraction card. Only after those extortion attempts failed did they finally seem to put their heads down and actually try to work out a reasonable stadium deal, but by then the damage was done. We have a public that is so alienated they don’t want to do anything that could be seen to benefit Pohlad, and a legislature that is so scared of public backlash that they won’t even bring the thing to a vote. It’s a bloody awful mess. I don’t think you can just look at the picture now and say the people of Minnesota are being unreasonable. You have to remember the history. If it were up to me, this would be a done deal – if Pohlad benefits from something that also benefits me, well, so be it, I don’t believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face. But I have some sympathy and understanding for the folks that still hold a grudge.

I really hope that Crasnick is right about the Twins being the surprise team of '06, b/c, to be perfectly honest, it's probably their last chance.

And I think that there's enough blame to go around to all the various parties, but Word Smith's point about the way Pohlahd handled getting a new stadium is a valid one.

I do agree that this year is the last and best shot at being competitive for a while. If it doesn't happen this year, look for a "fire sale" at the end of the year and the next rebuilding phase to begin.

Of course, it may not be in the Twin Cities. Because, while I don't doubt the validity of your points, WS, "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is exactly what that line of thinking is going to result in. When holding a grudge does you more harm than the person you're holding it against, it's just plain shortsighted, in my opinion, and in this case it's likely to result in the 2007 or 2007 "Twinsfest" being held at the Bellagio. That'll show that old cheapskate, eh?

OK, let me show a little optimism instead. I'm not sure where the crabbies came from this morning. If I really think about it, there is reason for optimism.

Is there ANYWHERE in the starting 9 positions where you think there will be a backslide from last year? The only possibility I can think of is at 3B; but if Tony B doesn't pan out, we're still no worse than 2005 ... right?

If anything, we should expect at least SOME improvement from every one of the starters. The Twins no longer require the Doctor to be the cleanup stud, so the 20-25 HR, 80-85 RBI season that we should reasonable expect becomes a very useful piece in the larger picture. Anything beyond that, and we all know he's capable of going way beyond that, is a bonus that puts us that much futher ahead. Castillo is a huge upgrade from what we had playing 2B last year. Hopefully he'll be leading off before June.

I was never all that high on Little Sweetchecks to begin with. Can some combination of Lew, Kubel, and Cuddles give us the .750 OPS and 73 RBI that JJ gave last year? It's reasonable to expect there will not be a backslide in RF either. They could even be better than JJ.

Maybe the best part of all of this is that, even if the New Additions (tm) don't pan out, the bench is made up of players that had significant time played last year. No one had anything close to a career year last year. I'd have to assume that, on average, the bench guys that played last year will be at least a little better in 2006.

So, the only reason for pessimism is if you forecast that BOTH the Doctor and the Chairman will actually backslide from 2005, White and Tony B are both flops, and the bench guys that pick up from them are no better than in 2005.

Of course, the World Champions may have something to say as well. Maybe it was the glamour moves they made in the offseason compared to our slightly-less-than-hoped-for moves.

I mean really, with the pitching the Twins have, even a little more offense could easily mean 90-95 wins. A big improvement in offense? My heart flutters at the possibiities...

Explain to me the logic in shooting down a fair deal, simply because the deal proposed 10 years ago wasn't fair? Isn't that what negotiations are all about? You bring what you think is fair, or what would suit you, to the table and work forward from that point. What businessman in his right mind is going to come to the table giving up more than he thinks he should have to? A bad one, that's who.

I was as mad as anyone else when the Twins were up for contraction. But after recieving a second chance, and still getting the silent treatment from the state that has been going on for a decade now, could you really blame Carl for wanting out? Carl might not have been negotiating in good faith ten years ago. But those tables have turned. Anyone who thinks the state is negotiating in good faith now (if there are actually negotiations happening that is, I'm not even sure that is the case) is naive at best.

>and in this case it's likely to result in the 2007 or 2007 "Twinsfest" being held at the Bellagio.<

But similar not-so-veiled threats and extortion attempts on the part of Twins ownership are what created the grudge in the first place.

Every time they pull crap like this, it's the last straw for a few more people and they dig their hole a little deeper. But they just can't seem to quit. Talk about short-sighted.

Why do those "few more people" care if they threaten to leave? They have no interest in helping them stay in the first place.

So let me see if I have this correct. What the Twins should have done all along was express how much they love the Metrodump, how the idea of leaving has never even crossed their minds, and how they couldn't be happier with their current situation. Then the state would have taken it upon themselves to come up with a plan, because the Twins would have been such cute and cuddly negotiating partners. Although, I'm not sure there could actually be negotiations, because that would suggest the Twins are unhappy. And that would be disallowed, because it could be perceived as a threat.

No one likes when teams just up and leave (Browns, Colts, North Stars), yet you can't warn people of impending actions either. Because then you're just threatening the people and holding the state hostage. Apparently I need to rethink all my philosophies. That way I can have my cake and eat it too!

Way to go, e-9, now you're talkin! Bring on the BitchSox!

Fran, I'm sorry but Speedy is exactly right. If you threaten to move or contract, you're extortionists. But, if you leave without those warnings (or "threats"), then you're REAL pond scum (just ask Baltimore fans how they feel about Colts' ownership).

It's one thing if those threats of moving or contracting are just negotiating ploys and you have no intention of ever doing either one. But if anyone really believes Pohlad or his family won't sell and/or move, well, that's naive.

The latest plan may not have made EVERYONE happy, but it involved no STATE money and yet the legislature wouldn't even put it on the floor for a vote. That, to me, is the very definition of "bad faith" and I'll be honest, if I owned that team, this would be the last year there would be a Minnesota Twins ballclub. I would have handled it differently of course. I'd have spent heavily on free-agents and bought the best team I could imagine to make a world series run this year. Run up the value of the franchise and then sell or move. But that's just me.

I think the ownership might have a more credible argument if the Metrodome had been bad from the start. I don't recall them turning away revenue when two or three million fans were streaming through the turnstiles, looking past the flaws in the stadium and turning it into Thunderdome! and the biggest home field advantage in MLB.

What did they get in return for that loyalty? Carolina Triplets, contraction, yada, yada, yada. Slap people in the face a few dozen times and don't be surprised if they eventually won't give you the time of day. So the answer is to just slap them again? That's productive. That helps your cause.

Hoo hah! Nice to see some voices raised in the proper direction here today. Speedy and JimCrikket, you are hereby asked to join me as Surrogate Sids on the BG panel. But what's up with Duquephart? "The Twins stand to make buckets of money and see their value increase significantly in a new park. And if you don't think that is more important to them than their fans, I feel sorry for you. I would like to see a new stadium as much as anyone...If the Twins were so concerned about the ordinary fan, the ordinary fan would be able to purchase a decent seat to a ballgame right now." Wow. First of all, who ever said the Twins were doing this just for the fans? Of course they want to make money and see their value increase; but those things also mean that they can field a stronger team and keep a few more of their core players. Isn't that what we all want, too? I would hardly say that the Twins have been covert in their desire to make more money, especially given the lousy deal they have in the Dome. Second of all, if you think that tickets to a Twins game aren't reasonably priced, try going to a game in virtually any other ballpark; you'll see that the Twins have some of the best ticket prices anywhere (and that fact is frequently mentioned in the national press when such issues are discussed). It will be good to start talking about actual baseball again - and to see our surprising Twins reclaim the Central Division crown.

Fran, 1987 was 19 years ago. What was a good deal then, financially, simply no longer is.

I'm hoping for two things to happen in the coming weeks. 1) now that a court has ruled the Twins have no binding lease, I'm hoping the Dome Commission will negotiate a short term (two year?) deal with the Twins that will give them more of the revenue generated at Twins games. With a reasonable short-term lease, maybe some of the pressure to solve the long term problem is relieved. Then, 2) Somehow your Guv and Legislature will come up with a deal that will allow a fair debate and vote on a stadium proposal. That way, at least if it's finally voted down and the Twins move on in a couple years, there will be some accountability.

Accountability? You're asking that the guv and the legislature force accountability upon themselves? That's my biggest frustration about this whole mess. No one wants to be the one that Carl "extorted" (not my word), but there is no accountability around being the one that let them leave.

Look, I get it that you can't change the past, and the only thing we can do is move forward from where we are now. It's useless to point the finger, and it's self-defeating to drill a hole in your little boat and drown yourself and Johan just for the pleasure of seeing the banker go under. So I'm not for one moment agreeing with the people who are obstructing this deal. It's just that I really hate to see people let Pohlad off the hook and lay the blame on everybody else. It was a sleazy, sloppy effort from the get-go and I'm not ever going to be persuaded otherwise.

And where would they go? Vegas? right. Like the casinos would agree to take baseball off the board at the sports books.

Charlotte? No stadium. Portland? No stadium, and the Mariners would scream bloody murder.

Who does that leave? Indy? too small, too close to Chicago, Cinci, St. Louis, and Detroit.

In short, this is yet more posturing from Pohlad. The Twins have a crappy lease, but if they could rectify that, there's really no need for a new ballpark there.

You folks are too good a fans, you deserve a better owner....

Given that my team has Reinsdorf, that's saying something....

Dear Ms. Smith,

No drowning Johan.

Love,
Batgirl

If slapping some people in this state across the face is what it takes to wake them up, then I say slap away.

And no one is suggesting anyone forgive Carl for bad deeds of the past. He's no saint. But herein lies the problem with this whole issue. Everyone wants to make it such a personal issue. Us versus Carl. Until people learn to set their personal feelings aside for awhile, no deal will ever get done. It's the Twins that will be leaving, not Carl. And even if they do leave, don't you think Carl is going to make a nice profit when he sells the team anyway? Either way he wins. Wouldn't you rather at least have the Twins in your own backyard for the next 30 years to watch and enjoy?

We'll not be having any Batgirl-drowning either, thank you very much. As Johan is to the mound, so Batgirl is to the Web - and both are too valuable to lose.

As for LeftWingCracker's comments...sir, have you been to the Metrodome? The world's best lease ain't gonna make that a good place to see a baseball game - just like the Pale Hose winning the World Series doesn't make US Smellular a great ballpark. There is nothing - I repeat, NOTHING (except maybe for the walkaway sundaes) - that makes the Metrodome compelling to anyone other than a hardcore baseball enthusiast, and those casual fans are the people that make all the difference when it comes to raising attendance and making money.

Is a better lease going to include sunshine on my face as I sit watching Johan shutout any of numerous opponents? Only if that lease includes tickets for me at Kaufman Stadium.

adidas-

Normally I would take offense to any suggestion that I have something in common with Sid. But in this case, since it's something I strongly believe in, I accept. :o)

Speedy

"Who does that leave? Indy? too small, too close to Chicago, Cinci, St. Louis, and Detroit."

I don't know how close all these palces are to each other but there are 6 teams in about 400 miles of each here. Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Expos, and red sox. there are also about a dozen minor leagues teams in that area as well.

I'm not as up on the Stadium there but have there been any public votes on the city or state level and if they were to have the public vote on it would it get approved for some public funding ?

Dear Batgirl

I didn't know he backed out of a 80 million dollar deal. That's pretty unforgivable. What a crappy thing to do when it was so close. If he balked at 80 million I can't imagine he would to willing to pay more. I think if they ever remake Dickens Christmas story, we know what person should play Scrooge.

p.e.m.

Personally, when I decide to go to a Twins series, I choose between driving to Mpls, Chi, Milw, or KC. All are 4ish hours away from me. If it's an early spring game, I might drive to the Twin Cities because, frankly, if I'm going to drive that far, it's nice to know for sure I'll see games. (I got VERY wet a few times at Met Stadium after 4-5 hour drives). But as often as not, I've chosen to go to KC or Chicago (though I actually hate Bitchular Field worse than the Dome).

I'll continue to make an effort to see them no matter where they play. I do feel bad for those of you who are accustomed to seeing them almost every game or even several times a year. Enjoy it while you can.

pem, the answer is no. I'm convinced the Batling community includes the only segment of the Minnesota population that wouldn't make Ted Kennedy seem right wing by contrast. The consensus, I believe, is that it would be all but impossible to get any sort of public funding initiative passed in a referendum.

Well I have a theory (and that's all it is) as to why Pohlad is willing to pony up a couple hundred mil now when he wouldn't do it before (and I don't think he "backed out" of anything... just that the $ he was putting in up front turned out to be a "loan" rather than a "grant").

My theory is simple. Since the time of the last proposal, I believe his banking conglomerate has been acquired by Wells Fargo, hasn't it? I had heard that little deal may have nearly doubled his net worth, giving him more pocket change to put in the stadium kitty. Still, in today's sports franchise environment, I don't see anything wrong with expecting a community to participate in the cost of a stadium if they want to be/remain a major league city. If they don't, I'm sure there will be a AAA club available. Wouldn't it be fun to be the BitchSox' AAA farm club?

It really is too bad that the hard feelings between community and owner have festered this way. I agree nobody is blameless. I'm just hoping cooler heads prevail sometime soon.

I live in the Twin Cities and I will drive 6 hours to KC again before I go to another game at the Dome. I don't claim to be a hardcore Twins fan who has attended hundreds of games in my time, but I've been to enough. Growing up in far outstate MN, the annual trip to the Dome to watch the Twins with my family was the highlight of my summer growing up. Now that I've grown up, I'd rather go to the dentist than waste one more beautiful summer day inside that place.

I've only gone to KC one time, and despite the Twins getting completely crushed, I had the most fun I've ever had at a Twins game. Enjoying a wonderful summer breeze with friends, watching as storm clouds approached yet somehow held off until all 9 innings had been completed. That was a baseball game. Attending a game at the Dome has become the equivalent of watching a game at home. Only difference being my seat at home is much more comfortable.

On the bright side, pitchers and catchers report in a mere 9 days !!!!

The off season is almost over and joy and happiness is upon us all.

I should have been a banker.

You and me both, BG.

But I tell you what. Powerball is up to $210 million. When I win tomorrow night, I'll come to the home opener and all the Batlings will start the season in style.

>Still, in today's sports franchise environment, I don't see anything wrong with expecting a community to participate in the cost of a stadium if they want to be/remain a major league city.<

Agreed. But I think the never-ending hold-up is the reciprocal expectation that the ownership should participate in the cost of its own ballpark (please, no stadium!) in a meaningful way.

As soon as any new proposal is looked at closely, the 'catch' becomes apparent. The ownership's contribution turns out to be a loan, not a grant. Or the contribution will be recouped or passed off in some way so that the actual layout is minimal or, at least, far short on a percentage basis of what other organizations have contributed to the cost of their parks.

I think if the ownership had invested even half as much money and energy into getting a ballpark built as it has with playing legal and financial games in slick attempts to push through deal after deal that minimizes its contribution and shifts the bulk of the burden to the public and the fanbase, we would have been watching the Twins play their home games in a far better facility a long time ago.

Fran-

Is the mere fact that the team's contribution will be recouped in future revenues what creates this "loan" you speak of? Or is there something I am unaware of? Please explain. Thanks.

Speedy

"I think if the ownership had invested even half as much money and energy into getting a ballpark built as it has with playing legal and financial games in slick attempts to push through deal after deal that minimizes its contribution and shifts the bulk of the burden to the public and the fanbase, we would have been watching the Twins play their home games in a far better facility a long time ago."

PR mistakes were made, without a doubt. And maybe you're right to say the energy spent on some of those mistake having better been spent on more productive efforts. But I doubt that "half" of the money spent on the lobbying, negotiating, etc. over the past 15 years would have been enough see a stadium get built in Minnesota. Not when we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course investments are expected to be recouped by some means over time. That's called business. Only a fool puts money in to a project or business venture up front without expecting to recoup those expenses through some predictable means. I don't understand why an owner is expected to simply "gift" hundreds of millions of dollars without a reasonable mechanism in place to get the money, with a reasonable rate of return, back. But to most of Minnesota, that's a "catch", I guess. It just confuses me.

I've finally figured out what the problem is here. Prepare to be enlightened. ;o)

The problem is Carl, just like you and me and the rest of the people with an opinion on this issue, we're all Minnesotans. What's the one thing all Minnesotans have in common? We hate spending money, boys and girls. We're all cheap, waiting for something to be handed to us for free. So you see, there's really no difference at all between Carl and the rest of us. Well, except for all the zeroes at the end of his bank account. This whole thing is the equivalent of two beggars arguing over who is going to spring for the new lakeside condo.

I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner.

Dear Mr. Crikket,

With 210 mi, you could make the Jim Crikket Baseball Stadium.

Helpfully,
BG

Not me. I'm an Iowan. I don't mind spending money at all (I just try to spend as little as possible in Minnesota!)

BG, I'm afraid our friends at Disney would raise significant (and ultimately successful) objections to the use of that name for a stadium. And as much as I love the Twins, I'm not sure the family would appreciate me blowing the entire amount on a ballpark 4 hours away.

However, as an alternative, I might consider buying the Dome and setting a firm date in, say, 2008 for it's demolition.

I would be willing to bet the Twins, Vikings and Gophers would be have plans for new digs in no time. (Of course, being a Hawkeye, I might just set the explosives off prematurely... during a Gopher football game, for example.)

"I don't understand why an owner is expected to simply "gift" hundreds of millions of dollars without a reasonable mechanism in place to get the money, with a reasonable rate of return, back. But to most of Minnesota, that's a "catch", I guess. It just confuses me."

Amen, Jim. Amen.

That's just the way things are in this frozen Utopia we happen to all love and live in. It all goes back to a point I made a few weeks back. Minnesotans hate rich people. It's not enough to make people feel guilty about the less fortunate at every opportunity. No, we also have to villainize those who happen to be financially successful.

Sorry, I was generalizing. Forgive me all you non-Minnesotan Twins fans.

Speedy

Nothing to forgive, Speedy... after all, you didn't call US cheap!

JimC

Adidasman:

I have been attending Twins games since the team first arrived in town. My wife and I attend 25 to 30 games a year, to include spring training and a series or two "away". I am well aware of what tickets cost. Here is what irritates me, try it yourself --- right now, if you go to the Twins site and buy a ticket to see Twins vs. Royals on 9/26 (a Tuesday) the best seat you can get is halfway down the first base line in sore neck land. For KC? On a Tuesday? This is the "best available"? Now, I know that business is business and that they need to hold back for season ticket sales, blah,blah. But why BS the loyal fan? Why not make that seating option what it really is: "The best we are willing to offer you for now".

Speedy -

I'm a Minnesotan and I don't hate rich people and I LOVE to spend money - ask my parents - and if you want I can show you my VISA bill ;-)

Much love
WW

I pains me to say this but here's the thing When The Banker Sells leaves or kills of the team puppy by puppy I will blame Tim from Egan Because he has no intention of even letting it get to a vote. He is now purseing it only to look like he tried to keep the team when he is only trying to Keep himself in the Gov mansion. My vote will be used for someone prostadium or not at all.

PS I'm Minnesotan and I only hate Walmart. It's personal.

Speedy - I get what you're saying about Minnesotans as a whole and particularly the legislature absolutely hating to spend any money. They simply don't realize that you get what you pay for, thus, the Twins play in a garbage heap (which came in UNDER budget - even at the time it was built, it was a cheap way out), and we can't get the budget bill passed on time, so in the long run, it ends up costing us even MORE money, like the extra paid for the government shutdown business, and the extra $30 million the stadium deal would now cost simply because they didn't get around to voting on it last year.

I am getting seriously frustrated with the entire Minnesota system of government. I fully intend to vote against every single incumbent in the next election, and I hope others do the same. Perhaps that would finally get it through their thick heads that they maybe should get something productive done with our money for a change?

However, like a few others here, I seem to be the exception to the Minnesota rule; like WonderWoman, you DON'T want to see my Visa bill either! ;-) I'd hate to see the Twins go, but unless the legislature goes through some serious soul searching, I don't see a stadium happening here. Something's gotta give. Heck, maybe I'd like it in Vegas, I hear that it's warmer there anyway, and people LOVE to spend money there, I'd fit right in ;-)

I don't know that I like the way you think, e-9...

>Only a fool puts money in to a project or business venture up front without expecting to recoup those expenses through some predictable means.<

You miss the point. The ownership's contribution costs them relatively little money, even up front. They will use other people's money in place of their own. (And even at that, they are not putting up the same percentage as ownerships in several other places.) If you donate $100 to my project and then I give $1,000 or $10,000 right back to you, what is your net investment?

The same is not true on the other side of the equation. The public will not be recouping its expenses. To the contrary, the stadium tax will only be the first installment. Higher ticket and concession prices, personal seat licenses, etc., will be in place for years to come.

Oh, but that additional revenue will be plowed back into the team, right? What evidence is there of that? Recall the years just after 1991, when the club was as (relatively, given the time and the small market) flush with cash as it's ever been, whatwith the extra revenue from two world championships in four years. Was that money invested into making the team better? The Twins re-signed Puckett, but only because Kirby accepted less money to stay here. Beyond that, I didn't see much, unless the likes of Sean Bergman and Otis Nixon were expected to yield another championship. So forgive me and others for being skeptical that the future will be different.

I am not a Minnesotan, but I can understand the legislature's point of view. Baseball fans like me are a minority. The legislature has a responsibility to non-sports fans, too. People who don't want to spend even a fraction of a cent of their tax dollars on a ballpark have a right to that opinion. I think those who take the legislature or the governor to task because they resist the urge to build ballparks and stadiums at the whim of the ownership and on the ownership's terms are misguided. Of course, the government officials are just covering their own backsides to keep themselves in office. But if you vilify politicians for acting like politicians, I think you have to vilify greedy owners for acting like greedy owners. No free passes for either side. It's only fair.

I think those who would blame the fans or Minnesotans in general for this mess miss the mark most of all. If the Twins leave, the fans and public will not be at fault. They will be the real *victims* of this asinine battle between the greedy owners and the pandering politicians.

>I've only gone to KC one time, and despite the Twins getting completely crushed, I had the most fun I've ever had at a Twins game. Enjoying a wonderful summer breeze with friends, watching as storm clouds approached yet somehow held off until all 9 innings had been completed. That was a baseball game.

Better enjoy those games in KC while you can:

January 30, 2006

Royals: Don't make us leave

Not quite one year after promising to stay put in Kauffman Stadium through 2014, Kansas City Royals execs are now saying they'll consider moving the team after 2007 if voters reject a taxpayer-funded renovation plan on April 4. "If they decide no, we'll start looking at other options," Royals owner David Glass told reporters yesterday. "I would hate to see this franchise ever be put in a position where they had to consider leaving Kansas City."

See http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/ for the links

Fran you make excellent points and I certainly agree that there should be no free passes to either side. As I've said all along, mistakes have been made by all parties.

But as distasteful as it may seem, there is a price that communities must be willing to pay in order to have a major league baseball team. At this point, it appears there is no price that the Twin Cities, and perhaps Minnesota in general, is willing to pay to continue being a major league community. Like it or not, the price for having a major league team today includes some form of public funding for a modern ballpark.

Other issues ARE important and yes, in the grand scheme of things, MORE important than having a major league baseball team in town. If the governments of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and their constituents, determine that there is insufficient appetite to continue having the Twins around, that's fine. A lot of fun can be had at a minor league baseball game for a far more reasonable price.

And, who knows? After the Twins have been gone a couple of years, maybe community values will have changed and there will be more of an appetite for making major league baseball a priority again. Of course, by then, it will take much more money to build a ballpark. But "Minnesota Royals" has a certain ring to it, doesn't it? (As long as they don't bring the pixie vests north with them.)

A couple of (randomish) things:

1) I thought Pohlad made his money foreclosing on banks during the Great Depression. I guess I've been had.

2) December 7, 2001: "'Baseball didn't go into this blindly," Pohlad said. 'They did a lot of market studies. They had a point system, the performance of baseball teams at a given town and they developed a lot of statistics that said Montreal and Minneapolis - or Minnesota - simply doesn't meet the test of being able to field a winning team because of the economics.'"

I take it those baseball studies were quite thorough, eh? Can't field a winning team, eh? While at the time it must have hurt like the dickens, it HAD to feel good (with tenfold the power) reading that now...

3) Is there anyone out there who can't see both sides of the coin? I mean, everyone has a valid point here.

On the one hand, you have taxpayers (and legislators who depend on their reelection from taxpayers), a portion of whom (a) do not want to see taxes raised and (b) do not to see funds go to a baseball stadium that can go to worthier areas like the education of our youth. Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, you have Twins' management not wanting to spend money on a project where recoupment of investment is not guaranteed. They want the risk split.

The only solution is compromise, and (again, another point adequately explored above in the posts) the sides do not trust each other enough to compromise.

Now I know nothing about the history, the negotiations, the failed proposals, etc., but it seems to me that there is a lot of money to be spent and a lot of money to be made here. Wouldn't a scenario where costs and profits are wholly owned by one party (or split by both parties) make sense?

For example, I like the unpopular idea of taxpayers paying for a stadium. Creates work and jobs, gets money flowing to the people. If the Twins sign a long term lease, then the state can profit off of "rent," concessions, etc. Of course, a portion of concessions and stuff could go to the team, or the team can man the concessions areas as part of the lease -- the beauty is it is all negotiable. The state can make more money off of personal seat licenses and be distributors of the tickets. The state can make money by selling the venue to other events, concerts, etc. during the times the Twins don't have the place booked.

Of course, all that cash could flow in the Twins' direction, if they are willing to invest the money up front. The state should have no reason to block it -- they would generate monies off of property and income taxes, benefit from increased jobs, and may benefit from an influx of general economy in the surrounding area and/or tolls (I don't know the areas proposed or involved, but if the stadium has a cool surrounding area -- see, e.g., West Addison St., 60613 -- people will spend money around the stadium).

Hard as it is to read, check out what Steinbrenner is doing. Under the rules, any money he spends on a stadium reduces the amount of expenses counted when calculating the bill for revenue sharing. He will then benefit from all of the income from a new stadium, which he will spend money to fill. Now, I assume that this works even for teams on the receiving end, because revenue sharing is based on total expenses, right? (Don't kill me on this one, I am just trying to understand the math of it, and it makes sense to me). So Pohlad could spend less than the proposed $X00 million by getting some cash from the revenue sharing process, and recoup his investments through a nicer stadium.

True that George has New York and its seemingly endless supply of cash to fuel him...well, not entirely true. Yankee Stadium sells out because George spends a lot on payroll to keep the team competetive. The Yanks are expected to compete every year and ticket sales reflect that. George's bottom line doesn't always (see, e.g., recent losses posted).

It seems that Twins attendance spiked from 1 million to almost 2 million once they started winning division titles. That's in a "bad" stadium. If you build it, they will come -- by "it" I mean a stadium with a competetive team. Minnesota may not be New York, but it doesn't have to be. Save some cash and build a stadium that seats 35,000 people, instead of 50,000. 1992 was the only year the Twins averaged 30,000. And sure, they sell out when certain teams come to town, but with only 35,000 seats they will sell out more often. Everyone will have a great seat, and the cozy atmosphere helps make the ballpark experience. It will also leave plenty of space for things that make you money, like advertising or an outfield amusement park or whatever makes teams extra money. Then sign one or two premeire players and you have a full season of sell-outs. 2.5 million plus fans. That's not 4 million like New York, but it doesn't have to be for everyone to be happy.

Does this ridiculous, rambling post make sense to anyone other than me?

It's like the old joke:
Guy: "Would you have sex with me for a billion dollars?"
Girl: "Yeah, for a billion dollars I would have sex with you."
Guy: "Would you have sex with me for a dollar?"
Girl: "No way!"
Guy: "Well, now we've established what you are, we're just haggling over price."

Pohlad and the taxpayers have established the situation and are just haggling over price.

Hopefully-not-too-boringly,
YankeeFan

Right now I think I'm up for more sass - =)

WW

I seem to have that effect on the ladies ;)

YF

OK, so getting back to BG's original post...

I keep reading that Baker OR Liriano are going to be in the rotation. That the other one will either start the year at AAA or in the bullpen. Am I the only person that scratches his head at that assumption?

By all accounts and from what I saw last year, these two are STUDS on the mound! (Are guys allowed to call other guys studs?)

Now... Kyle may have a great year. But they guy has been 9-13 for like the last 10 years or something! Does anyone think either Baker or Liriano couldn't at least go, say, 11-11?

If Baker and Liriano show up in camp and are the real deals... give em the damn ball every 5 days and let's win some ball games.

JC:

Liriano has great stuff but he lost command during key moments last year--let him spend a few months in the pen (like Santana did a couple of years back) as lefty reliever and non pressure innings--then after allstar break bring him on.

DAM

OK, Duquephart - here's what you said: "right now, if you go to the Twins site and buy a ticket to see Twins vs. Royals on 9/26 (a Tuesday) the best seat you can get is halfway down the first base line in sore neck land. For KC? On a Tuesday? This is the "best available"?" And then you said that you understand that they're holding off on selling some of the better seats for new season ticket holders. All I can say is - yeah, so what? EVERY team operates that way. If you wait until a few days before the game, you'll get a shot at the better seats. And as far as your argument is concerned, the fact that the seats you don't want are the seats you don't want is exactly becuase of the fact that the Twins play in a football stadium; in most other ballparks, those would be pretty good seats. So the Twins in a new stadium help the fans by making more of the seats desirable...and they help themselves by selling more of those now-desirable seats. I just don't quite see why you're bashing the Twins for "not caring about the ordinary fan" and only wanting to line their own pockets by building a new ballpark - doesn't everyone involved benefit from a new ballpark? And isn't that OK? Why does all this only work for people if Pohlad and the Twins lose something in the process? Is that what this whole thing is about? The citizens of Minnesota want to see Carl Pohlad spend a ton of his own cash and suffer a bit, or they won't support a new ballpark? The rich guy has to take a pounding so y'all can feel good about yourselves - "Man, we showed HIM, didn't we?" I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking just baffles me. If I lived in Minnesota right now, I would gladly have given up a couple of cents on the dollar in order to have the team in a new, open-air ballpark. I'd have purchased shares in the team when they were talking about doing that. Not just because I am a Twins fan, but because I understand the value of a pro sports team to a community. I live in DC, and you should feel the difference in the way the town feels now that they have the Nats; it's been a palpable change in mood, and all for the better (despite all the predictable political nonsense that has been attached to getting the stadium deal done). I am NOT a Nats fan, but I have no trouble knowing some of our taxes will go to getting that ballpark built - because it's good for the city. I don't care about who wins or loses in terms of ownership or politicians, because their winning or losing has no ultimate effect on my life. Gee whiz, guys, it's so simple. Keep sticking it to old Carl, and eventually he'll stick it to you - and then everybody loses. And the thought of the Twins playing anywhere other than in Minnesota just breaks my heart.

DAM, I've just never been a believer in having a guy who's a starting pitch spend time in the bullpen doing relief work. That screws with your head. If he had trouble with command in pressure situations last year when called up, that can be explained away as being his first taste of The Show. I know having two young guys in the rotation may not be good for Gardy's heart, but I'd still say let's see what he can do sooner rather than later.

For an example of how a starting pitcher might actually thrive in the bigs after his major league career began in the bullpen, see SANTANA, Johan.

Did I suggest a pitcher CAN'T follow that model? Of course not. Do you KNOW that if Santana had been starting sooner, he wouldn't have thrived just as well? No.

The Twins have a very narrow window right now given all the players entering the final year of their contracts and the other uncertainties in this organization and the competitive level of this division is stronger than it was when "SANTANA, Johan" was breaking in. This year, especially, I think you put your best 5 in the rotation, regardless of how long they've been in the league.

Just a couple of thoughts

If the good people of MN think they can hurt Carl they are fooling themselves. So let's say the Twins never get the stadium, how hurt is he going to feel when he just sells the team? Twins fans will be the one's hurting when the Twins are not there anymore.

Living in SF area I can tell you the Twins are a great value and at least they are not going to hike up the price for a ticket on the weekends and for certain teams.

If the Twins do move one day, even if they are still called the Twins I don't see how I could continue to be a fan. I just think it would hurt too much.

I think the Twins should start Liriano in AAA and make sure Loshe is moved by the all star break. He is going to force the Twins into arbitration again, after another sub .500 season, why does he think he deserves as much as he is asking? I think the guy is as big as a cancer as JC was. Yes, even if he did win 14 games one year.

I'm fine with rolling the dice with Liriano and Baker in the rotation after the break.

Go MINNESOTA Twins!

Look, Morny had an offseason from hell last year and believe me... if you don't start out the season in good shape, it won't improve as the season goes along.

Also, have we forgotten the stud he was when he came up in 2004?

I fully believe he can match or beat his production from 2004, in 2006. BUT, even if it lands in-between, we're looking at a 255/322/487 with 30 HRs (in 525 ABs).

In summary, don't give up on this 25 year old yet.

Aright, a couple points.

1 - There have been one heckuva lot of posts in this thread, but surprisingly despite all the comments on how we expect Pohlad and the Twins organization to rightfully try to get the deal that's most beneficial to them, I haven't read any about how the public and its negotiating proxies should expect the same. Shouldn't the public expect a return on investment relative to what the team gets?

2 - If building an outdoor stadium turns the weather in MN into something resembling San Diego, I'm all for it. I've been to plenty of miserable games at Camden Yards (one of those pretty outdoor stadiums we're trying to model ours after) where you huddle for hours in the rain wondering when, if ever, the game will go on.

Morneau won't be 25 until May. Get it right. :) Just kidding.

I'm with you Jlubby but I have given up defending the Dome.

But trust me it will only take one trip to MN ruined b/c of a rain out to get me going again on why would the Twins have a stadium w/ no roof.

Sorry, but I'd prefer my April baseball w/out snow or rain, as well as my October baseball.

A co-worker of mine saw Carl in the Minneapolis skyway last week - he was slouching in a wheelchair and didn't look good.

And, caluofmn, tickets for the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs are indeed "premium priced" at $3.00 more than regular price.

Hmm no sass yet - sooo former Twins News

Manager Joe Girardi said Monday he would have no problem using a rookie as his closer. One reliever merits particular close attention when pitchers and catchers report Feb. 18: former Twins prospect Travis Bowyer, who will be given every chance to compete with veteran Joe Borowski and others for the closer's job. -- Miami Herald

WW

Heraldguy

your news makes me sad

On a practical note, I have discovered that the computer has a rather odd idea of what the "best available seats" are. For example, it seems to think a seat on the lower deck way down the line is better than any seat in the upper deck. In that case I find I can do better by talking to a live person. I got some pretty darn good seats for the Yankees series by calling the ticket office after the computer wanted to put me in left field.

adidasman ---

I am far from being anti-new ballpark. What part of "I would like to see a new stadium as much as anyone" do you find the most difficult to understand? And I was not presenting an argument but, rather, relating an irritation. And no, not everyone benefits from a new ballpark. Believe it or not, there are all kinds of people who are not baseball (or even sports) fans, and could not care less about a ballpark, new or old. And those people also vote, which is, of course, one of the places where the impasse gains momentum. How about the guy who can not afford his medications, where do you suppose his priorities lie? It is a far more complicated issue than most fans perceive it to be. If one wishes to play the devil's advocate, I think the differences between "need" and "deserve" would be explored. There is much more in it for the team than there is for the fans, at least financially. The problem, I think, is that the team expects us to see it the other way around and scurry toward their point of view like so many lemmings. There are ulterior motives which Minnesotans (some would say the conservative/Lutheran/etc. ethic) are wary of. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the team has not always negotiated in good faith. And there are quesions --- will increased revenue be invested in the roster (try to remember that the team made oodles of money on two World Series titles and used it to give us probably the most forgettable decade in their history)? --- what will be the impact on prices for tickets, parking, concessions, etc.? I am only suggesting that those who wonder what, exactly, is in it for the ordinary citizen (besides a tax increase) are entitled to do so.

Word Smith,
I agree 100%. I've had the same problem with the online ticketing system.
It also gives you little flexibility in choosing seats in a particluar area. It will give you seats in row 30 in one section, while the next section over down the foul line has seats in something like row 15.
I purchase my single game tickets almost exclusively either by phone or in person.

The Stadium really gets people fired up. What would we do if we actually got it.

Certainly much of the "return on investment" that the community receives is intangible, unlike the hard dollar benefits to the team. What does having (or not having) major league baseball mean to the overal "quality of life" in the area? Will the presence (or absence) of major league baseball have any effect on major businesses/employers wanting to locate to (or move from) the area? What's the overall economic impact (positive or negative) with regard to jobs and entertainment revenue generated in the area? Clearly there are those who argue both sides of the issue of what real intrensic "value" a major league team is to an area, but either way, it is true that the "return" is not as clear cut or easy to understand for the average resident/voter. (Now if they'd put a big casino out beyond center field...)

It really could be true that the Twins don't bring enough to the table to make it worthwhile to pay for a significant part of a new ballpark. There's nothing really wrong with the 15th largest metropolitan area of the country becoming the largest population center not to have a baseball team (although Miami clearly could be in that category soon as well) if the citizenry and their duly elected representatives make that determination.

Sometimes the chasm is just so wide and deep that it's impossible to bridge the two sides.

caluofmn, regarding outdoor baseball and rain outs...

All I can say is that while I was in college some friends and I made a trip to Met Stadium for a weekend series, including a Saturday double header (ah, those were the days) and it started raining about 4 innings in to the first game.

We got wet. We waited. We got wetter.

I called a girl I had gone to HS with who was living in the Twin Cities at the time. She relayed that she and some friends were planning on heading out to a night club (OK, back then it was a "disco"... so shoot me) in an hour or two.

I returned to my seat where my drenched friends were bemoaning our cold, wet fate. I relayed to them that if they preferred, we could go back to the hotel, change in to some dry clothes and meet up with half a dozen girls. To their credit, the decision was unanimous.

Now... we may not have seen all the baseball we had hoped to see that weekend, but it doesn't mean we didn't benefit from the journey.

Not coincidentally, since the Dome started hosting the Twins, I have never again had such a... whats the word... successful?... Twins road trip.

Just saying... not all trips are necessarily "ruined" by a bit of rain!

Jim,

Great story and thanks for sharing.

Once upon a time I would be nodding my head and agreeing with you but now the trip involves a 4 hour flight from San Francisco and abit more planning.

Plus I doubt the Mrs. would be crazy about meeting up with a half dozen ladies for a night out. I guess that's what memories are for.

But you are right rain doesn't ruin a trip to the place I call home in my heart. But after all the errr... stuff I get when I root for my Twins in Oakland, it feels great to be the home team when I make it out to the Dome.

Duquephart - I understand your points, and I never said you were anti-new ballpark. I just think you're off when you suggest that the team has been disingenuous about why it wants a new ballpark, and I don't see why you're so up in arms about the ticket situation. But your argument about those who care versus those who don't could be applied to anything - schools, parks, roads, airports, you name it. There will always be those whose lives are not impacted (or at least they believe their lives aren't impacted) by improvements in education or highways. "What if I have no kids? Why should I pay for education? I don't drive, why do I pay for roads?" Now, I'm not saying that having baseball and having schools or highways falls under the same aegis; but what I am saying is that too many people are making this about baseball and not about the fact that the Twins play an important role in the community and in the nation's view of Minnesota (and in the state's ability to attract new businesses and residents), whether they personally like baseball or not. As I said before, I truly believe that this deal would be final and the park would be in mid-construction anywhere else in the country - but, in Minnesota, it may never happen.

wait, i know this is long past the point, but leftwingcracker is outta control. no need for a new ballpark? no place to move them?

The park would probably already be built if the Twins weren't caught in what many perceived as a lie (the 80 million "contribution" which was really a loan) several years ago. Maybe Minnesotans are not as easy to fool as those elsewhere. The ticket deal is just one of my pet peeves. I like to buy all my tickets at once and get it over with, and we like good seats to weekend games. It irritates me that the team won't take $2,000 of my money in one chunk. And, I think "best available" should mean just that. I'm funny that way is all.

"Maybe Minnesotans are not as easy to fool as those elsewhere." Yup. Thanks for clarifying, Duquephart, and for succinctly stating the peculiar arrogance that seems an intrinsic part of being a Minnesotan. As long as people (and this is from a Twins fan!) think that agreeing to a stadium deal amounts to being "fooled", then it'll never fly. Ever. So it'll never happen, and then all those who thought they were being "fooled" when Pohlad said he'd have to move the team without a stadium will find, one of these days, that they've been wrong. And then it'll be too late.

Here is an old story I found that talks about how MN doesn't love the Twins.

Maybe some of these feelings haven't changed?

http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/archive/apr98/aschburners4798.htm

This story is from 1998. The team was really bad. Now that the team is competitive, I certainly hope some people's feelings have changed!

Thanks adidas for stating so perfectly what has been bothering me the most about everything MN of late. The arrogance that we are somehow better or smarter than everyone else. Not just in regards to the Twins stadium either, it's everywhere. It is extremely disappointing. And yes, I am a born and raised Minnesotan. I love this state. But the attitudes in this state infuriate me sometimes.

And Ellen, I am sure more people are interested now. But this is another thing that's wrong with the fans in this state. Sure, we're as good as any other fan when we're winning. But when we're not? Well then we can't be bothered by sports, because we have better things to do. Not everyone, but a majority of the fans. As soon as the winning stops, we quit paying attention.

I have had season tickets for 14 years so I guess I have been "paying attention". But yeah it's true, most people here are fair weather fans.

to lighten the mood.... LeCroy's got a new job, closer to home this time:
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060208&content_id=1308734&vkey=pr_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

That was after the Strike and durring a bad part of Twins history loseing seasons makes it hard to attract fans.

I'm gald Big boy has a new home i was starting to wonder if he would ever find a new home. I don't think the the twins cities area is able to support Four major sports teams and College Teams. 2.7 million people in the area Just may not be enough.

Good for Matt! But... the National League?

Do you think his agent mentioned to him that there's no DH in the NL?

Hopefully, the Nats don't have the same effect on his career that they did on Guzman's.

It's actually closer to 3 million now. Here's a list of metropolitan populations across the country.

http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm

I'm sorry though, but even IF you're correct about not supporting 4 professional teams (I just can't bring myself to concede that hocky is a "major sport" but I'll refrain from picking a fight with Minnesotans on that front), to have baseball be the one you don't support? Very odd.

Even if the story was from 98 and the dog years for the team, the attendance the Twins got was just bad.

Seems like people want to see a winner more than anything else. Ask the Pirates and Brewers how attendace went up and back down after getting a new stadium. Having a good team might matter more than where they play.

That being said, the Twins won 3 divisions in a row and it wasn't until last year that they drew 2 million. Where was everybody? Yes, I know outside enjoying the sun. My point they had a great club and drew poor numbers to their games.

Maybe the comment about fair weather fans is right and not only fair weather but late in turning out. If so the Twins might have accept that they will never be important enough to get a new stadium built.

WOW I just really brought myself down.

In other news, Good job LeRoy on your new job with the Nats. Maybe he is on Jenny Craig and will be a new slimmer LeCroy coming off the bench. Sucks I will never seem him try to take 2 in a Twins uni again. (Can you imagine that in a pixie vest?)

Dear Batgirl

8 days until pitchers and catchers report.

p.e.m.

Not only did the Nationals sign Matt to what apparently is a guaranteed contract, but they've offered Sammy Sosa a "non guaranteed" contract.

I'm trying to figure out why those two stories, taken together, made me chuckle a bit.

Oh, and the Reds hired the Twinks' asst GM.

Try "San Antonio."

You'd keep the team in the Central time zone. The travel would be a bit more aggravating in the Division, but not so much that it'd create issues.

Unfortunately, from reading the comments, it's clear a lot of people are interested in cutting off their nose to spite their face. They think forcing the team out will somehow punish Pohlad, when all he'll do is laugh his way to the bank.

They forget the oldest rule of card-playing (and negotiating, for that matter) - the only hand you get to play is your own; you don't get to play the other guy's hand too.

For years, official Minnesota stuffed fingers in its ears & screamed "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!" every time the Twins mentioned a stadium to replace the Dome.

For years, official Minnesota watched other cities make changes which increased their team's revenue sources - thereby allowing them to be more competitive - and laughed the Twins out of their offices whenever they said "How 'bout helping us out?"

For years, the Dome's attitude was "everything for the Vikings, leftovers for the Twins".

For years, people carped about lousy teams - and refused to do anything which might increase the revenue base, which would've helped with those lousy teams.

If I was in Pohlad's shoes, my attitude would be "I'll put money into the deal, but only to the extent it makes sense for our operations. I'll be damned if I'm gonna do any favors for people who wouldn't lift a finger to help us all those years."

Some folks have to get over their attitude that they have a right to Twins baseball.

Hockey is a major sport in Minnesota when it sells 18000 Tickets a night and the 2.7 million Was from 2003 estimate I can't belive that 300,000 moved here and were born. But it's probally just a difference in estimates. The team that is probally the least popular in Minnesota is Basketball. I'm not lobbying for a team to be cut off but basketball is the least popualar right now in 1999 and 1998 it was probally the twins.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/about/facts/TwinCitiesPopulationFacts.pdf here's my source Jim just wanted you to know i didn't pull the number out of thin air.

Doesnt matter to me, Paul, its close enough for horshoes, hand grenades and... well.. anyway.

Actually, the hockey experience is a good analogy. I have no idea why they left, but the North Stars threatened to leave and did so... and the only way MN got an NHL team back was to build a new arena.

I don't see much need to comment on the stadium discussion - my own feelings should be well known from previous comments here and posts on TwinsTerritory.

This comment, though, I couldn't let pass:

"Some folks have to get over their attitude that they have a right to Twins baseball."

I realize it's not going to be a popular opinion, but if the Twins don't like it here, let 'em walk. I honestly don't care.

Remember the North Stars? They, too, were considered a well-run franchise with deep local roots. But the North Stars were arrogant, too - they didn't like supporting youth hockey, for instance, saying that folks going to their kids games kept them out of the arena for pro games. The owner was greedy and manipulative, piping in crowd noise and redoing the chairs in the Met so that any size crowd might be mistaken for a packed house. They blew out of town in a big to-do, headed for Dallas, and never looked back.

And, one day, we got a better franchise. You can walk through the new arena and see hockey celebrated at all levels. Players and coaches from the pro team actually visit the state tourneys and tour the schools. The Wild may not have as many Stanley Cup Finals appearances as the North Stars did, but they're better citizens of Minnesota than the North Stars ever were.

Frankly, the world isn't going to end if baseball leaves town. We went a decade without hockey and ended up better off in the end. It took us 40 years to get a replacement NBA franchise, and the Mississippi largely stayed in its banks. It would be a sad, sad day if the Twins ever left, either for another town or because Big Bad Bud took the axe to their collective throat, but life would go on.

All right - to steer the conversation to a less depressing topic, what do folks think about Mauer's decision not to play in the World Baseball Classic?

Whoohoo! 100th comment! Sorry. Couldn't resist.

ARGHHHHH STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!

Much Love
WW

I'm actually overjoyed that one of our key players decided not to play in the "Major Injury waiting to happen" classic.

I am too. This "Classic" has to be the worst idea the baseball gods have ever come up with... and that's saying something.

So apparently all of us Minnesotans are arrogant, know-it-all, cheapskates who don't support their sports teams and hate all rich people, and are also a bunch of leftwing radicals to boot (not that there's anything wrong with that -- but somebody should tell Norm Coleman). Not to mention the nasty weather which renders an open-air ballpark totally impossible even if we could get the stupid politicians to get their thumbs out. I really can't imagine why anybody keeps living here.

It is going to take all of four or five seconds after the voters/politicians approve a new ballpark for the Twins to say: "You know, we really need a roof too".

That sounds like a good reason to just say 'no' to anything proposed, not that anyone needs another reason.

Sorry, I'm sure I'm guilty of prolonging this debate too much already. That's my last comment on the subject.

Trying to be the last comment

Good try. But sorry.

Oh, thanks, Word Smith - you reminded me of the other quaint idiosyncracy of Minnesotans. They're hypersensitive and insecure about being Minnesotans, so they react badly when someone suggests that they're possibly a bit quirky or odd. (I lived in Minnesota when "Fargo" came out, and every native I knew said, "We're not like that! We don't talk like that!!!" Oh, really?) Anyway, why DO people live there? Because it's a beautiful, vibrant city, full of great art and great music and lush parks and really good people. Just because you're cheap and suspicious of the rich and touchy and bandwagonish doesn't mean you're bad people. (But you are too bloody liberal, at least in the Cities. The Iron Range elected Norm. The Cities elected the late Paul "I make Ted Kennedy look like a moderate!" Wellstone.)

I love Minnesota. I loved my three years in Minneapolis, and I come back often - it feels like home to me, even after such a brief time there. And I love the Twins. But I just hope and pray the people of the state can stop being Minnesotans long enough to save the team, because it may not happen otherwise.

Actually the suburbs elected Norm, the Iron Range is DFL.

Sorry if I got cranky, it's just that this thread had become rife with generalizations and oversimplifications. I hate generalizations, because they are always wrong. And the world would be a better place if people would just stop oversimplifying.

"I hate generalizations, because they are always wrong." Are you intentionally trying to be ironic here, Word Smith? Just curious...

Ummm... yeah.

Guess I better figure out what the irony emoticon looks like before I post anymore.

The thing i most respected about Wellstone is his abilty to Have the name paul and make it big. O and last comment.