Yesterday in the game thread, some folks were watching Dick-n-Bert, some were with the radio guys, and I was watching the Brewers coverage since I'm in their broadcast area. Selig went from one.. to the other.. to the other and, apparently, said the same stupid stuff all three times. How he loves the Twins and this meant so much to him.

Both before and after, the Brewers announcers walked the team line of, "Stop blaming Bud for the 2002 All-Star Game! And contraction! And anything else! He's a Saint, I tell you, a Saint!"

Another advantage to the stadium deal being done: he's the Marlins' problem now.

"Bud, really, shut up. No one likes you... Go away, leave us alone, and let us enjoy our new stadium"

Truer words were never spoken.

I look at Sid and Bud as playing the "bad cops" to help get this deal done. Sid screamed and cursed at us for 4 years while Selig held a gun to our head.

Personally I think we should remember the whole contraction fiasco. Because despite all that nonsense, there still were oodles of people up here who believed the idea of the Twins leaving was all a scam. Despite contraction threats, we still almost didn't get a stadium. Just another day in Minnesota, always have to make things more difficult than they need to be.

I say let Bud celebrate, let Carl celebrate. What do we care? In April 2010 we'll be the ones celebrating. And that my friends is all that matters.

I was watching the game in a sports bar that didn't have sound turned on for this game. When I saw that Bud was being interviewed, I just had to laugh because I just KNEW what they were talking about and I KNEW what the reaction of BG and my fellow Batlings would be.

If it helps, I suppose you can take some solace in assuming that there's a pretty decent chance that neither Carl nor Bud will be around by 2010.

A-freaking-men, BG. I saw him being interviewed during the Twins game yesterday and I immediately turned the channel to the Cubs-Sox game.

Bite me Bud.

Well said BG. The last thing we need is anything that smells remotely like a victory dance from Bud (which is a pretty scary image).

The last thing I wanted was the sense that Bud was successful in his threats. That is NOT why this thing worked out. I have to say, most people fell into 3 different camps on this thing.

1. I want a nice ballpark to watch my favorite team at, dammit. I don't care if I have to cough up some dough to do it, as long as I'm not left feeling taken advantage of.

2. A ballpark would be nice, but that really rich guy should pay for most or all of it. I'm resentful enough of previous efforts to force me into taking bad deals, so I will assume it's a bad deal until proven otherwise.

3. I really don't care one way or the other if the team stays or goes. We've had this issue forced on us for long enough. Either pass the thing or don't pass it. I'll be pissed if it does pass, but no one heard the 17 previous "No's", so why would anyone care now?

Would any one of these 3 groups really be swayed by threats to take the team away? Group 1 is the only one threats could have any impact on, and they don't need threats to be on board. Being a "Group 1" person myself, I've become so suspicious of Bud (who wants to be paid to kill their team?) and Carl (Pick me! Pick me!); that I was ready to slip into the second group if they insisted on holding a gun to our heads.

Let's just enjoy the moment, without anyone trying to kill the mood by rubbing our noses in it.

I too watched the Brewers feed (on MLB extra innings--note to BG--on MLB extra innings you get to hear lots of terrible homer announcers like Darren Sutton and the Squawk--usually the feed is the home team though they use Boston and Yankees on the road). Listening to Selig interview--I had the same feeling--strong arm black mail--first here in DC and then Minnesota--was the contraction threat real?? I dont know--was it used as blackmail to get 2 new stadiums--without a doubt!!! Do I feel good about Bud Selig--absolutely not--he is a crook just like most politicians. He did say that he will retire after the 2009 season!!

But its good the Twins are getting a new park and Bud will be gone.

DAM

I guess I'm a little more pragmatic about the whole "guns to our heads" thing.

If you go back to the 1990s and look at attendance and general interest in the Twins, the word "apathy" just leaps out at you. Far be it from me to defend Selig and Pohlad but if that 2001 team hadn't come out of nowhere, half the people who now trash Selig/Pohlad about the contraction issue would never have cared. And going back further, it was, after all, Pohlad who kept the franchise alive by buying it from Griffith in the first place. Carl was not some kind of Red McCombs, who itched to be a part of the sports-ownership club.

Pohlad's made a number of PR mistakes, without a doubt. But the Twins haven't made him wealthy. I'd also add that if the performance and attendance of the 1990s had carried on in to the current decade, I wouldn't have blamed him a bit for getting out through sale or contraction. (On a side note, it will be interesting to see if contraction talk rears its head again this summer and, if so, whether the Royals and Marlins become the replacements for the Twins and Expos in the "heads on the chopping block" department.)

Selig is another story altogether. Never liked him and never will. But I don't need to point out his shortcomings because every other day he manages to do that himself. If he were smart (as if that were possible), he'd have never been interviewed yesterday. Twins fans who support the stadium want nothing to do with Selig and those who opposed the stadium sure don't care what he says. Should have just shut up and stayed out of it. But then he wouldn't be Bud.

All this talk about Bud and grass has me nostalgiac for the 70's.

Did anyone else catch the great Bertism from Sunday's game? "This is Boof Bonsor's first major league debut."

Considering the line he put up, I can't wait for his second major league debut.

I live in Milwaukee and have hated Selig with a passion for twenty-five years. Baseball is truly the worse for having Selig on the scene for all these years.

The past five years, I have developed a hatred even deeper than Selig. I know Andy MacPhail is godlike in Minnesota, but he has been a total disaster in Chicago. Recently Chicago citizens were asked who the hated most. Ben Lauden was number one but number two was MacPhail. I wish we could ship him home to the Twin Cities.

Amen, BG! And how disgusting it was to listen to our esteemed TV announcers last night do everything BUT ask Bud if he wouldn't like to take this opportunity to apologize to the people of Minnesota for colluding with Pohlad to kill off the Twins.

Thank god you said it BG. Seriously...he was making me sick listening to him try and kiss ass when he was up in the booth for that inning.

Then he made his way over to the radio and I'm sure he tried to shoomze us there too.

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand why we have to concern ourselves with what Bud thinks about our new stadium. Look I'm no fan of Bud. Contraction was an ugly, ugly thing and we just happened to be unlucky enough to be in the middle of it. But this is a business, and whether you all like it or not, losing the Twins and Expos back then would have been good for baseball as a "business". Bud owes us an apology? Why? Because we had stonewalled every attempt at getting a new stadium for 5 years by that point? Now before you all start saying that Carl is to blame for lots of that with his shady dealings, let me say that I agree. I'm not saying that we should have given him exactly what he wanted the first time he asked. But if you remember back to 2001, the chances of the Twins getting a stadium were hovering right around 0%, ever. With that kind of outlook, I'd be trying to get out of a bad stadium anyway I could too.

I don't want an apology from Bud. I don't want an apology from Carl. I'm not going to sit here and fester over something that happened 5 years ago when I should be celebrating the fact that I am going to have the Twins to watch in a brand new stadium for the majority of my adulthood. I know this is totally un-Minnesotan, but I'm going to be happy right now, happy without being upset that someone else whom I might not like also is happy. Do we always have to be mad about something/someone??? Just let it go, you'll be a heck of a lot happier.

Gotta call blackmail blackmail. ...By Bud, Pohlad, and Hartman. It ain't pleasant, but it won't do to ignore unpleasantness.

Bud, talking to Gordo & Dazzle: "Well, I was talking to Carl Saturday morning--we talk every saturday--and I almost asked him if he was glad the deal was that close to being done, but I didn't want to jinx anything."

I was revolted to find out those two are best buds. But then, in the end, not surprised.

Well, despite them, we still have a team, and we're getting a stadium too!

Sometimes I think people would have preferred to have Carl (or Calvin before him) just pick up in the middle of the night and move the team (a la the Baltimore Colts) instead of letting the public and its elected representatives know what was needed in order to keep the team in place.

Yes, there were several rounds of "threats". If, after the first stadium request was turned down.. or the second perhaps.. the team had been sold/moved, I suppose that would have proven the ownership was serious. Then certain people would apparently feel better about things (never mind that the team would have been gone years ago).

From a safe distance, what I see is an owner who persisted in making one attempt after another at negotiating a deal that would result in the Twins staying in Minn for years to come. The contraction issue aside (and as has been pointed out already, as a purely business decision, contraction made a lot of sense at the time), what I've seen has been a great deal more patience than I would have ever been willing to demonstrate if I had owned that team.

You call it blackmail, I call it a legitimate use of leverage in a business transaction. Every business transaction comes down to the seller obtaining fair market value for the goods/services he/she offers. Baseball teams are not public trusts and no community has an entitlement to any team.

:stepping off of soapbox before the tomatos start flying:

JC

I feel one thing should be said in Selig's defense: He is the one who went after steroids in baseball. The union fought him to the bitter end, but Selig got what was best for the sport in that case and finally got some punishment in place. Perhaps a little late, but Barry Bonds' suckitude is evidence that the testing has scared off a lot of users.

Shut UP, Selig! Just shut up! Like BG said, GO AWAY!

I'm with Speedy, I'm just going to be happy about the new stadium for awhile

Sorry, I'm not joining the parade.

What Selig & MLB did prior to 2001 was point out that no city has a "right" to a baseball team - it was the equivalent of a parent telling a child to "Eat the broccoli."

With all due respect to the people of Minnesota, back in those days there was very little indication that anyone gave a damn whether the Twins survived or not. The team wasn't very good; people didn't show up; and the people who didn't sneer at the idea of building a new stadium for the Twins laughed out loud at the whole idea instead. Watching from afar, they seemed to have a perverse (at least, in my mind) pride in the notion that they could be the first "fan base" to stand up to wealthy owners & drive a team out of business.

All the contraction talk did was say "Look, if you don't want the product, we can arrange it."

The scorn that followed was of the "You wouldn't dare!!!!!!!!!" variety - talk about chutzpah!!!

You want scorn, I'll give you some ...

To all the politcos & others who had sneered for years at the Twins desire for a competitive building who suddenly rose up in righteous indignation when the word "contraction" was uttered ... after all those years of saying "We don't give a damn if you're here or not," the false outrage was sickening. And even then, after being a reprieve, after all that blather about how important the Twins were to the community, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, the political class damn near refused to act!!!!

Saying Selig "blackmailed" anyone is akin to complaining that you're being blackmailed when a landlord tells you "if you're late with the rent again I'm going to have to evict you."

Minnesota has a very strange history with its sports teams - it essentially told the Lakers & North Stars to "get lost"; its support for Uinversity of Minnesota athletics is lukewarm at best; it darn near succeeded in telling the Twins to "get lost"; & whether the Vikings will ultimately stay or go is still up in the air.

As much as it rankles, people who value the Twins presence in Minnesota should be glad the "C" word was uttered, because that(and the timely play of the 2001 Twins) is what it took to finally create the conditions where the blockheads would move.

I'll add that, when it comes time to cut the ribbon on the new stadium, the people who should be allowed to be front and center with ceremonial scissors would include those politicians at the county or state level who had the fortitude to vote FOR the stadium and then as a result may lose their respective seats in the next election as their vote becomes an issue. That would be especially true of any state senator who voted "aye" because 34-32 was awfully damn close to "no stadium, now or ever."

Jim and BD, you seem to blame the apathy and poor attendance of the '90s on the fans. I call it a direct consequence of Pohlad's lack of interest in the quality of his product, which led to years of losing on the cheap. Year after year, the team lost, nothing changed, and everyone knew that Carl was pocketing his club's take of the revenue-sharing pool. People recognized that the product was bad, and why, and they acted appropriately.

It is not our civic duty to support a pro sports team, whether it be good or bad, or however disgracefully its ownership and front office behave. We have a right to demand better pitching and fewer ass bats. We have a right to demand a smarter front office and an ownership that shows it cares by spending the money to get that extra player to make a difference on the field. We have a right to demand that if we are to fund 75% of a new stadium project, we should have a big say in how the money is raised, how the the profit should be divided, and what the facility should be like when it's opened.

Carl and Bud said, "No. You have no rights in this relationship at all. You'll give us what we want, we'll do with it what we want, you'll accept whatever kind of product we turn out, and if you don't like it, tough. Who are you, the customer, to tell us how to run our business?"

Funny how pro sports, and baseball in particular, seems to be the one business in which the customer is blamed if a product is bad and doesn't sell.

Fright,

How about those teams that weren't winning but still had good attendance?

You are right that we are under no obligation to go and support the team but it does say something (to me anyway) when fans will only turn out when the team is winning. Where I come from those fans are called band wagoners.

I was going to 15 to 30 games a season during those awful 90's b/c I'm a Twins fan.

Maybe this is why it took this long for a new stadium to be approved. People don't really care about the Twins (unless they are winning)

Jim C:

We agree. The organization is a Pohlad business, and I thank him putting his resources into keeping the Twins in town and competitive for 22 years. I have no trouble remembering the early '80s and Calvin Griffith's threats to move to Florida.

I believe that the value of the Twins in terms of building community is not properly appreciated. If the state wanted any moral claim in keeping the team the "Minnesota Twins" it had to show the money. Playing 30 seasons in a mistake, an oversized warehouse, I think, is plenty. The Dome sucks the joy out of a game that is meant to put the shine on summer.

My first thought on hearing the stadium news was thank heavens, we won't lose the Twins. My second thought was, yay, I get to watch them play outdoors downtown. I'll be at the '10 opener if it's played in a driving snowstorm. Still, I won't miss Sid Hartman's nasty name-calling and Bud Selig's cutthroat actions. I won't forget, either.

"Pohlad's made a number of PR mistakes, without a doubt. But the Twins haven't made him wealthy" - JimCricket

Jim, I'm mostly with you here, but I want to point out that NO baseball team makes their owners wealthy...until they sell them. Carl's sitting on a windfall, esp. after a new stadium is in place. It's the appreciation in value, not the year-over-year earnings that make ownership worthwhile.

Since we're having so much fun throwing around the word blackmail today, can I get a ruling on whether or not I'll be able to claim blackmail of those opponents who claimed the world as we know it would come to an end when in 10 years we have a beautiful new stadium, as well as education, health care and a welfare system that still rank in the top ten in the entire nation? Any threat that doesn't go through is blackmail apparently, so I'd like to know if that goes both ways.

And frightwig, I can tell that we disagree on this entire subject, and how it was resolved. That's fine, to each their own. I would simply state that Carl (and Bud) were going to root for a bill that had the best chance of succeeding (one without a referendum). There is nothing sinister about that. If you want to blame someone for taking away what you feel is your right (the right to referendum) then blame the Hennepin County officials who created the plan, and all our elected representatives (our voice in democracy, sometimes forgotten) who approved this bill. No one forced them to do anything (as witnessed over the past decade of no progress), they made a decision that they felt would benefit the state of Minnesota.

Although there is much more I could say, this is already my third post regarding this topic, two too many in my eyes. Enjoy the stadium all. I look forward to seeing you all on a sunny summer day in 2010.

I've spoken too much on the topic already as well but I do take issue with the "Pohlad's sitting on a windfall" thinking. It isn't like he spent $35 million and got to sit on his property until he sells it for $350 million. He's invested more than he's taken in during many years and, if you can believe the Strib (I know... thats a big if), has borrowed money to keep the team in the black. Will he make money in the end? Probably. I just don't see that as "bad". I also don't think he'll end up making anywhere near as much as any number of alternatives investments he could have made with that original $35 mil.

Fortunately, I think we're all in agreement on the most important thing. The Twins survive and we'll all be able to enjoy outdoor baseball in a few years... and for many years to come. I'm glad we're debating these issues following the passing of a stadium bill and not arguing about who was to "blame" after the team was gone.

Some great thoughts here -- and I am so glad this long, ugly stadium saga has a happy ending.

The only thing that made me sicker than Selig and contraction were the bi-annual "stories" that the Twins would move to Charlotte, Las Vegas, Portland, etc.

As far as the Pohlad family -- I have mixed emotions. They've put up with a lot from local "leaders" -- and dished out it, too. In the end, I am thankful that they made the effort to keep the team and didn't give up on getting us a new ballpark. Carl Pohlad and the Twins also brought two world championships to Minnesota -- something our "beloved" Vikings have yet to do.

Ah the business of baseball. My feelings on the subject can be summarized by saying that contracting two franchises this summer would increase the credibility of baseball in my eyes. How sad.

Fright:

Glad you said "seem" because that isn't what I said.

The product through most of the 90's wasn't good. Fans had no obligation to support it.

At the same time, Pohlad didn't have an obligation to lose money or go into debt to improve it, either - neither did/does he have the obligation to accept negative cash flow for decades in the hope/expectation of "getting ahead" when he finally sells the team. Sure, we can hope an owner's willing to do it and we ought to be darn appreciative when he is, but we have no right to DEMAND it.

A huge part of the reason the late 90's product was so bad was the revenue situation, driven both by the economics of baseball in general & the particular cash flow deficiencies of the Dome for the Twins.

My point is [a] the product was bad; [b] the solution was apparent - cash flow & revenues had to improve; [c] that required changes, both in baseball in general & in terms of what the home park generated; [d] the "public" wasn't interested in doing anything about the latter until the "C" word came up; [e] so those who brought it up actually did those of us who want the Twins to exist a favor.

Despite what Hartman continually writes, there's no way owning the Twins has been a losing proposition for Pohlad. Whatever short term money he puts out, he'll ultimately recover it all ten fold when he sells the team. He holds on to it, investing the minimum necessary to field a slightly +.500 baseball team (see: offseason 2006-2007) while the rest the overall value of the league increases annually. It's all about the final sale price.

...I'm even boring myself, now.

I still cry BS to Selig's threats of contraction. No one's losing money on the Twins, least of all Major League Baseball. If it was really such a bad business move for Pohlad to be in baseball, he would get out, because Carl didn't get to be the owner of the Twins by making poor business decisions.

At least when teams threaten to move a franchise, there's something to potentially be gained there, but when you just end a franchise, you don't gain fans anywhere, you simply lose them, and it's not often a good idea to just dump a bunch of potential customers.

Contraction was scare-mongering that was apparently successful enough to make some believe it was a necessary evil. Whatever. Whether or not it was successful, it was a bunch of dirty, rotten lies and half-truths that made me feel like bathing 8-9 times per day. Any good leader could have found a better way to solve whatever problems existed.

I'm glad contraction is going away here, but I'm sorry for whoever has to deal with it next.

JimCrikket said: "I'll add that, when it comes time to cut the ribbon on the new stadium, the people who should be allowed to be front and center with ceremonial scissors would include those politicians at the county or state level who had the fortitude to vote FOR the stadium and then as a result may lose their respective seats in the next election as their vote becomes an issue. That would be especially true of any state senator who voted "aye" because 34-32 was awfully damn close to "no stadium, now or ever.""

What an absurdly anti-democratic thing to say! Why should we applaud any politician who votes against his/her constituents' interests? This is the Seattle stadium situation all over again, where patronizing and paternalistic politicians (PPP) go against the will of the voters because they think they know what we want more than we do. Of course they should lose their seats - they don't represent the voters! Why should we applaud that? (Aside from the fact that it advanced our own self interest.)

I'm sorry, BG. I'm really sorry. You see, I stopped reading this post as soon as I saw the words "Sid interviews Bud". I've learned over the years that nothing good for us fans can come from a little sentence like that.

Whew! What a debate! One thing that hasn't been mentioned is what things were like in this community when the Metrodome was built. Many of us then felt as though the Dome was crammed down our throats by a bunch of big shots and the Strib. We were told at that time--by some of the same people (e.g., Sid), that domed stadiums were the wave of the future and that we'd have many happy years to relish the fact that we weren't freezing our butts off every early spring and late fall. This latest neverending stadium initiative felt to me a lot like the same thing all over again--except that it lasted a lot longer and, thanks to the "C" word, it got a lot nastier. I'm just glad it's over. And I hope we get a better ballpark this time.

Cal: in which city do the fans show up year after year, even if the team blows and ownership seems disinterested in improving the product? If you're thinking of Cubs fans, everybody knows they're all either drunk or too young to know any better.

BD: you originally equated poor attendance with a local disinterest in baseball, and that giving our dollars to a mismanaged franchise was like eating our broccoli or something we must do to prove we deserve a major league ballclub. That sounds like blaming the customer to me.

You go on to say that Pohlad isn't obligated to accept his losses, or take on debts to improve his product so that he might make profits later. However, nobody said that he must accept indefinite losses. I'd just say that rather than blame the marketplace when his bad product and shady tactics didn't sell, it should be his responsibility, as well as in his own interest as a businessman, to improve his product and cultivate a better relationship with his customers. If that means assuming a short-term debt, so be it. In other businesses that's just considered an investment in future returns. Spending money to make money.

Why didn't he do this? Why did he supposedly accept years of red ink while failing in session after session to get his ballpark plans approved? The simplest answer (which is often correct) is that he wasn't losing money. As long as he kept costs down and had the league money coming in, I'd bet the Twins financially were doing fine.

Lexis's records for the StarTrib only go back to 1991, so I couldn't find any Sid gems from the late '70s/early '80s extolling the virtues of a domed stadium, but I did run across this article published just before game six of the '91 series.

Based on this story you'd expect Sid to be against an open air stadium. But it is Sid after all, and no one really expects him to be consistent.

-----------

Series another gem for Dome's crown, by Sid Hartman

You have to take your hat off to civic leaders such as John Cowles Jr., Harvey Mackay, Curt Carlson, Pete Ankeny, Chuck Krusell, Dan Brutger, Jerry Bell, Mike Lynn, Max Winter and the others who worked so hard to get the Metrodome built. There was plenty of opposition from across the river, and many politicians tried to sabotage the project. Most of the local media powers did everything they could to discourage having the Metrodome built. Some of them still love to rip the Dome, although they have no basis for doing so.

Without the Metrodome, this area might not have baseball. Former owner Calvin Griffith talked seriously about moving the Twins before the Metrodome bill was passed in the Legislature. And even after the Legislature agreed to the financial structure of paying for the Dome, Griffith bargained hard because he had several cities that would have given him the world to move.

The Metrodome has been a big plus for baseball because of the area's cold, wet springs and falls.

The first two games of the 1965 World Series at Met Stadium against the Dodgers were played Oct. 6-7 and the final two Oct. 13-14. There was a better chance for favorable weather than this year, when Games 6 and 7, if necessary, will be played Oct. 26-27.

I've never heard one Twins player complain about the Dome. The players like playing in comfort. Twins general manager Andy MacPhail and the management team consider the Dome a big plus.

I get really tired of Carl bashing. A lot of people aren't old enough to remember Cal Griffen trying to move or dump the team because it was driving him to the poorhouse. Carl was the only guy to step up buy the team to keep it in Minnesota.

Carl made Kirby the highest paid baseball player of the time. He put two World Championship teams on the field for us (one more than Boston for the last bizillion years). He has hired a management that recently brought us 3 division championships.

An earlier poster mentioned he paid 35 mil for the team and could sell it for 350 mil now. That's nice but back then I could buy a pack of smokes for 30 cents and now they cost $4.00. Candy bars are up about ten times too.

When the C word happened Carl agreed to sell out. The MBL buyout basicly covered his purchase price, outstanding contracts with players, and the debt of about 125 mil. Not much left for him to laugh about on the way to his bank.

Carl bought a ballteam to keep it in Minnesota. I doubt he has lost much money because his management runs a very tight ship. I know he hasn't made any big dollars of the team. Just look at income versus the players contracts.

Anyway people seem to dislike because he makes the team pay it's own way. For some reason Minnesota fans want a rich guy to dump vast unrecoverable sums of money into a team so we can feel good about ourselves and maybe get of our butts and go to a game.

If Carl actually did build his own stadium the whole deal would change big time. When a billionare spends 500 mil on a stadium he becomes a 500 millionare. I really doubt going to a Twins game would be as fan friendly as it is now. Right now I can take my family to a Twins game for about the same price as a movie.

So much for ranting but I really believe we are not giving Carl the real credit he deserves.

Broker

I get really tired of arguments based on bad facts. $35 million in 1984 is about $65 million now, adjusted for inflation. If you want to argue about what a good rate of return on $35 million would be, go ahead. But quoting cigarette and candy prices isn't really going to convince anyone that you know what you're talking about.

The strange thing about Bud is that some of his stuff is good (the wild card, three divisions) some's Ok (interleague) and some's awful (so so so many things).

But he was in charge of expansion with 4 extra teams that despite 3 ws between them have not proved themselves to be viable long term, and then he started talking about contraction as if baseball couldn't possibly support 30 teams, in which case why did he add the extra 4 teams in the first place?

If the CEO of a company went with one strategy and then announce that actually the opposite strategy the shareholders might be thinking someone else should do the job.

We need an ex-player as commisioner (Ripken? Gwynn?) shake things up a bit, having an owner as commisioner was a very very bad idea, whatever happened to seperation of powers?

D

in the penultimate paragraph of my post if you insert the phrase "that was needed" after the second appearence of "strategy" then it makes a lot more sense

proof reading is for wimps

I'm not sure why I returned to this page while eating lunch today, but I kind of wish I hadn't.

My final comment on this subject is to alex. My opinion may be "anti-democratic" but then we don't live in a democracy where every decision is made based on majority vote of the population. If anyone votes for a politician because they feel that person will vote as he/she would on every issue, that's naive. We vote for people to represent us based on a belief that such person has the intelligence, character and values to do what is right in governing.

As I was taught, if politicians always voted based on the majority view of their constituents, we'd all be crying out "God save the Queen" before ballgames instead of singing the National Anthem.

God knows, politicians can stay in office forever by always voting and voicing opinions based on what the majority want to hear. True leaders make difficult decisions based on what they believe is in the best interests of their community, rather than what polls show. We have far too few true leaders in this country already.

Dan - I think Ripken would be a terrific commissioner.

Bud can . A true waste of food. Anyone want to start a pool about when the next call for a new stadium will occur? Will it be before the just-approved one opens?

Broker is right, "I really believe we are not giving Carl the real credit he deserves."
He's a world class thief! And let's not ignore his accomplices Pussy Pawlenty, 'Exonerated' Johnson, and Goober Sviggum.

FredB:

Spoken like someone who has no business reading a Twins website - unless, that is, you've been rooting for their extinction.

I too don't care for arguments based on bad facts. The fact that 35 mil in 84 is 65 mil now based on inflation is not relevant. That simply means he would have to pay 65 mil now to make the deal.

A better measure is future value of money. Based on a return of 6.9% the 35 mil would now be $159,870,000. However this this doesn't show the true picture either. He's about 90 years old so if you assume he started with $1,000 (a lot of dough back then) 70 years ago and ran the same calculation he would now be worth $250,497.20.

The problem here is that he managed to make more than $1,000,000,000. That's much more than $250,497.20. I think it is safe to say Carl manages a better return than 6.9%. So let double the rate of return to 13.8. Now his 35 mil has turned into $730,000,000. Gee whiz maybe he could done better without the ballclub.

BTW doesn't the club carry about 125 mil of debt? Let's see sell out for 350 mil subtract the 125 mil and you are left with 225 mil. That's about 505 mil short of where would be just doing his normal business deals. Don't tell me he's in this for the money.

As for candy and cigs. They are good indicators of cheap stuff that people buy because they have a few bucks in their pocket.

Broker

Rats, I forgot to mention inflation. Let's adjust that 225 mil back to 1984 dollars. Now the 225 mil bcomes 119 mil. That's $40,870,000 dolars less than he could have made at a measley 6.9% return on his investment. Like I said, he's not in it for the money.

This is an old thread so I doubt many will read this but I really get tired of people thinking Carl P is ripping off the fans. In 22 years his team has won two world championships and 3 division championships. He could have put his money to better use but didn't.

For crying out loud, I could have put 35 mil in the bond market of all things and done better than he has with the Twins. We seem to be acting like Roman peasants complaining that the christians don't avoid the lions better.

Broker

Anyone other than Sid Hartman will tell you that Pohlad does not do anything that is not profitable.
The most recent ball club sale was for $450 million. The Twins might not get that much, but their value, according to Forbes, has more than _doubled_ since 1998. Hard to do much better than that investing in anything. Forbes states that the value of the team increases at a rate of about 7% per year (are you getting an interest rate that good?).
To repeat, the value of the investment doubled in 7 years...
Pohlad the humanitarian.

Jeb look at my numbers. Keep in mind he had to wait 15 years for it to start to double. You are right CP doesn't make bad investments but the Twins haven't given him anywhere near the return he gets on his day to day business. BTW a 6 to 8% return on investment is historically normal. I am not talking about a savings account at the bank.

When he bought the club he could have bought 30 year bonds that are still paying 12.8%. That's as conservative as you can get. If he had done that and let the Twins move he would be about 300 mil ahead of where he is now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BTW CP is a humanitarian. Or at least he is a big supporter of the War Memorial Blood Bank here in Minneapolis. He is big with other charities but I don't know those details.

I guess what I really don't understand is why people are so upset with CP and the Twins. They are the only pro team we have that have ever won anything big. The Vikes came really close in the 70s but never pulled it off. We have much better than the fans in most other places but all we do is complain. I just don't get it.

Broker

Of course, he didn't invest in 30 yr. bonds when he bought the Twins for 44 mil. in 1984. He invested in something that gives him positive cashflow each year--$30 million in gate receipts alone in 2005. True, he spends more than that on expenses, but he also has income from revenue sharing, merchandise, and god knows what else. Does he operate at a loss each year? Probably. But, until he got this stadium--which I'm thrilled about as a fan--he's always been angling for the final sale price...which, as I've stated, was helped out nicely by the recently sale of a club for $450 mil.
BTW, yep, Pohlad (net worth, 2.8 billion) is a heckuva humanitarian--he and his companies gave away 500-615 THOUSAND dollars to Katrina relief!

I swear that Pohlad the model for Montgomery Burns.

Hey fellas you can ignore the numbers all you want but they don't lie. The calculations I did are very standard. Doesn't matter if he bought the team for 35 mil like Steve says or 44 mil like Jeb says. The truth of matter is that the Twins are bad investment for anyone trying to make real money.

The ballclub is a break even deal at best. At the time of contraction threats the team carried 125 mil in debt. I suspect it is higher now due to the increased payroll costs. For crying out loud he agreed to sell out for 250 mil then. That was pretty much a wash at the time.

Nobody is going to get rich by owning the Twins folks. Over a 22 year period an investment in the bond would give you a much better return than buying this ballclub.

It ain't about the money folks. It's about being able say my team won the series or my team won divisional championship or I own a major league ballclub or I was the guy that kept the team in Minnesota. If it was about money Carl Pohlad the shark businessman would have never spent a dime on this team.

The numbers are there guys and they don't show much profit for a 22 year investment of that size. From a financial standpoint buying the Twins from Cal is probably one of the worst investments he ever made.

Broker

Just stumbled onto this page, and I thought I'd add that most of the numbers flying around here are highly speculative -- MLB nor the Twins have ever opened their books for public review, not even for a journalist. Of course that's their right as a private business... but then again, most private businesses don't demand this kind of guaranteed public money either.

Hopefully this is all water under the bridge by now, but I've always had a bit of a grudge against MLB for demanding guaranteed community investment (above and beyond their normal revenue streams, which all come from us fans anyway), but at the same time have banned any possibility that a community could ever take ownership of their own franchise. That is solely intended to protect their business interests, the same interests they try so hard to play down when they "partner" with communities for stadiums. Arg...