PDA

View Full Version : Reusse: Always are Angry Twins Followers



Seth Stohs
03-08-2013, 07:10 AM
Reality from Fort Myers: Angry Twins followers | 1500 ESPN Twin Cities ? Minnesota Sports News & Opinion (Twins, Vikings, Wolves, Wild, Gophers) | Sportswire: Minnesota Twins (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Reality_from_Fort_Myers_Angry_Twins_followers03081 3)

Patrick Reusse has been covering the Twins for a long time, but he's also been able to gauge the pulse of Twins fans through the years.


There were always a few in the '60s who occupied good seats at the Met and were relentless in booing Harmon Killebrew because he "struck out too much.''

He opines that there have always been angry fans and uses a 1970 Ron Perranoski story to illustrate that. He talks about how social media (specifically Twitter) can really bring it out too now.

I'm with Mr. Reusse on this statement:


ll of which is a way of saying that, even though the angry fans always have been out there, I'm astounded at the degree of vitriol that the Twins are facing among respondents in the ether world after two lousy seasons.

I always wonder why some people choose to be so venomous in their hate and disgust as to lash out so strongly. What I like about this article too is that Reusse breaks down the haters into four key categories (although some fans find something to complain about with everything):

1.) The Pohlads - some seem to think that getting a publicly-funded stadium ensured that there would be an endless supply of payroll.
2.) Terry Ryan can't rebuild - Rebuilding is not at option and Ryan violated that fans trust by not going after the best free agents.
3.) Ron Gardenhire's strategies are why the Twins lost 195 games the last two years. It had nothing to do with the barrage of injuries in 2011 and that starting pitching he was left with in 2012.
4.) Joe Mauer got his money and then didn't want to play... and even though he played more than any other point in his career, he still doesn't hit enough home runs. I would add now that although people wanted him to play more and not get regular days off as a catcher, those same people now complain that he isn't catching enough anymore.

So, which of those four categories do you fall into? Why are some of the fans out there so angry about baseball? I acknowledge that the last two years have been immensely disappointing, but I can't imagine it ever affecting me like it clearly does for so many.

sorney
03-08-2013, 07:20 AM
I wouldn't fall into any of the specific categories per se, but if I had to choose, it would probably be #1. Getting a tax payer funded stadium, then only spending according to revenue streams, although makes good business sense, just rubs me the wrong way. I also know there are many companies that do the exact same thing, it's just a little more public and visible coming from the baseball team

snepp
03-08-2013, 07:34 AM
I'll give myself 25% of #1. Not vitriolic, but their payroll shenanigans are certainly beginning to aggravate me.

notoriousgod71
03-08-2013, 07:37 AM
1,3, and 4.

As for #2 I think Ryan can rebuild just fine. I just don't think he can or will make moves to get the Twins to the top.

Brock Beauchamp
03-08-2013, 07:41 AM
I'll give myself 25% of #1. Not vitriolic, but their payroll shenanigans are certainly beginning to aggravate me.

This (and a little of #2... Not that Ryan can't rebuild, I just don't like his approach to "bridge free agents"). I occasionally boil over because they had the ability to be better but didn't take it. I'm not asking for Zach Greinke. Hell, I'm not even asking for Anibal Sanchez. Saunders and Marcum in place of Pelfrey (not really against the Pelfrey signing, though) and Correia would have left me quite happy going into this season.

Riverbrian
03-08-2013, 07:48 AM
I can honestly say... None of the above.

I've never really liked the uniforms. Can that be a category?

Han Joelo
03-08-2013, 08:16 AM
None of the above as well. Did you see Anibel Sanchez get shelled in the WBC? Sort of kidding. What gets me is the inherent hypocrisy between #1 and #5 (Hicks on opening day). On the one hand you have people clamoring to spend more, and the other you have people who think it would be a waste of money to start Hicks' arb clock early. Are they the same people?

cmathewson
03-08-2013, 08:19 AM
I think this board and the Strib board are not representative of the heart of Twins fans. More like fringe groups on either end of one rug.

The Strib board haters don't pay close attention to the team, but they have their "big money" hatred. If the team gets a new stadium, they should win it all every year. Anything less is a crime against the taxpayers. And Mauer is the chief perpetrator.

The other fringe, which I see on this board quite a bit, are people who don't pay close attention to the team, but think they can get everything they need to know from Fangraphs. They ignore trends and improvement, and find whatever negative stat they can to show how player X will suck this year. Then they multiply it out over the whole team and a 65-win team is born.

Unfortunately, we have the silent majority that makes up most of the rug, those who are routinely called cool-aid drinkers on this board. Folks like you and me are naturally optimistic, want to root for the team and not against it, and look for reasons to be optimistic.

For example, Aaron Hicks. We've had a long and ugly discussion about him in several places on this board. But only one poster had the courage to show her enthusiasm at what she sees: a star in the making--a quieter, switch hitting Torii Hunter with patience. The moment she posted it, there were a bunch of haters saying a) The Twins would be idiots to keep him in April because of salary and team control issues down the road b) he's not ready because he strikes out to much or whatever, c) he's had a couple of bad years in the minors so he's obviously not as good as the experts claim, or d) unlike all you optimists, I saw him play once and he went 0-4 with three strikeouts.

All the haters miss a crucial fact: The other candidates are either not ready (Benson) or not regulars (Mastroiani). So let's just accept the fact that he's the best player available right now and will likely win the job. And why not get excited about a BA top 100 prospect entering his rookie season? What is wrong with enjoying the thought of that?

The haters equate being negative to being critical. And somehow, if you're not critical, you're an idiot. News flash, you can be critical and still be positive. You can say Hicks has work to do on his outfield throws and still say he's an exciting player. You can pick apart his game and still say he's as good as Span right now and has much higher upside. That's the fun of being a fan. No player is perfect. All players fail two thirds of the time. But are they good enough to help the team win over the long season? If so, and you can provide good reasons why, stating them doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you smarter than the haters who paint in black and white, and mostly black.

Gernzy
03-08-2013, 08:26 AM
I'm a little in #1. I wish we would have spent more money.
Biggest thing is haters are going to hate, no matter what. When we win the World Series next they're going to complain that we didn't sweep.

snepp
03-08-2013, 08:27 AM
On the one hand you have people clamoring to spend more, and the other you have people who think it would be a waste of money to start Hicks' arb clock early. Are they the same people?

From what I've seen the vast majority of people who think Hicks should go down for a bit aren't concerned about money, just years.

LimestoneBaggy
03-08-2013, 08:31 AM
I can understand the positions of Snepp and the RP completely--probably more so if I had paid any money for a public stadium--but being that I didn't, if I put myself in the management or ownership chair I can't say I would have done things too differently (other than spending a little more time looking at Marcum, Saunders, Jackson, [insert other bridge pitcher here], I can admit to much frustration in that). In the end, it's a business, and I think they are doing a pretty good job of trying to rebuild. Would I do things a little differently, sure, but I wouldn't have traded for Scott Diamond and even with regression, that was a great trade.

Outside the stadium issue, I don't understand the anger. I could go on, but that's probably pointless, I'm not trying to convince someone to change thier mind.

As to the Joe Mauer angst, some people can't help themselves. However, if a person really spent an hour scouring the journal articles about this work ethic, training, and otherwise, and they still hold that belief; well sir, some people are always trying to ice skate uphill....

jun
03-08-2013, 08:37 AM
1 and 3.

Seth Stohs
03-08-2013, 08:44 AM
I think cmathewson just illustrated the topic perfectly... Thank you for that!

Brandon
03-08-2013, 08:54 AM
My only complaint is signing corriea to that 2nd year. I would have preferred the Twins spend more money and sign a better pitcher in that instance. I do think Pelfry is a capable 3 or 4 starter also another Middle IF and bench bat (though we may have a decent in house option here) Could have made this a .500 team. That would be better to watch.

Willihammer
03-08-2013, 08:58 AM
So, which of those four categories do you fall into? Why are some of the fans out there so angry about baseball? I acknowledge that the last two years have been immensely disappointing, but I can't imagine it ever affecting me like it clearly does for so many.

You have a self-selecting sample, Seth. Only the charged fans will visit Twinsdaily and moreso, bother to login and post. Same goes for the Startribune comments for that matter. But that is stat speak, I apologize.

As for me, I fall into category 1

twinsnorth49
03-08-2013, 09:03 AM
I guess I would fall into a bit of #1 and a bit of #2. Not from a taxpayers perspective, seeing as I'm not a resident, but from a fan's perspective that would like to see them live up to their 50% of revenue to payroll commitment, it's frustrating that they neglect that.
#2 doesn't come from any belief that Ryan can't rebuild, quite the opposite, I believe strongly that he can. I just feel disenchanted about him dropping anchor on this season despite words to the contrary last October and the fact I don't believe it was necessary or that it would have jeopordized anything in the future.

It's ok to be critical, it doesn't make you negative, or less of a fan, and there is nothing wrong with questioning others opinions to make sure they stand up to some basic logic. It also doesn't make you vitriolic.

zenser
03-08-2013, 09:09 AM
I would have to say I fall into #1 and #3. I think TR does a nice job. Do I wish he would/could spend more money to get some better free agents? Yes. But I think that falls into #1. Like other posters have said, I, too, think that Marcum and Saunders would have been an improvement to Correia and Pelfrey. I agree that Correia for one year would be better than two years. I am kind of excited to see what Pelfrey can do though.

For #3, I feel that Gardy has a slow hook. I also don't like the fact that he seems to give the core players a day off on the same day leaving us with a weak lineup. I would prefer staggering the days off so we don't give away three outs at the bottom of the lineup. That is just my opinion.

fairweather
03-08-2013, 09:13 AM
Put me in all those category's. I think you mistake honesty for anger. I will not pretend that this team isn't owned by an owner with more money than croesus. I won't pretend that Mauer didn't know that hitting 28 HR's in 09 would make him worth an extra 10 million a year. I won't pretend that he hit those HR's by accident. I won't pretend that he couldn't hit for power every year if he wasn't obsessed with batting title(which means crap in my opinion) Would I ever attack the players personally on twitter? NO. Would I ever use Twitter? NO. Do I let my disappointment in the Twins boil over into my everyday life? NO. But fact's are facts and this organization would do well to get some truly intelligent people running it who are passionate about winning a World Series.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 09:16 AM
Some #1...not the endless money part because that's the extreme end which I don't think is a fair assessment of anyone. Most everyone I've talked to that have payroll concerns seems to have issues with them not living up to the promises given to the fans concerning payroll...especially when they gave the reasons why they needed the new park. No one I know of think payroll should be unlimited.

Part of #2. I believe he can rebuild, I don't like the lies he told this offseason about this season. Then again, the lies weren't unexpected.

#3 doesn't apply. I haven't been a Gardy fan since 2007...for all the same reasons I'm not a fan of his now. Nothing to do with the last two seasons.

#4 definitely doesn't apply to me.

and none of it makes me angry.

USAFChief
03-08-2013, 09:30 AM
I don't fall into any of Reusse's "categories." I'd put myself into the category of "50-year Twins fan, who has gone to extraordinary lengths to religiously follow the team through thick and thin and who has spent a lot of time and money to do so. One who can no more stop loving baseball, or the Twins, than he can his family. As such, a fan who reserves the right to celebrate the good with joyous abandon and understands only one team wins the WS every year, but who also reserves the right to express his opinions when he perceives ownership, management, or players not doing everything they can to be that one team." The worst thing that can happen to a professional sports team isn't angry fans...it's apathy. At least there's people out there who still care enough to have some emotional response when their team loses 190 games over two seasons and there's ample evidence ownership and management haven't done everything in their power to prevent a repeat.

crarko
03-08-2013, 09:36 AM
None of the above.

josecordoba
03-08-2013, 09:38 AM
1. I'm not in number 1. I would never be naive enough to think the Twins should jack the payroll up 40 Million Dollars to go from 67 Wins to 75 Wins. I also realize the Twins would never make up this type of revenue spent. I have sympathy for those who question moves like the Kevin Correria signing as not the best use of resources.
2. I have the most sympathy for position 2. I'm not Anti-Ryan. I would be open to arguments that the his past track-record is somewhat overrated due to a weak division along with the idea they have the same front office that led to our recent starting pitching debacles. Playoff Records are Small-Sample Size Galore.
3. Is Gardy a Joe Maddon like strategist? No-but he seems to keep the clubhouse together. I think it's silly to assume he's a radically different manager when they win 96 games versus 66 games.
4. These people are the most annoying. Mauer's durability up until 2011 was quite good. He led the league in OBP in 2012. He's projected by BBP to lead it again in 2013. I'll say again "If you don't resign a beloved hometown player with a potential Hall of Fame career ahead of him then it's time to shut down Baseball in Minnesota". Even if Mauer gives you 2 WARP the rest of the contract- the Twins had no other options.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 09:42 AM
Strange thing is, Reusse has always been Mr. Negative. It's funny HE comes out complaining about fans' negativity.

Willihammer
03-08-2013, 09:45 AM
Strange thing is, Reusse has always been Mr. Negative. It's funny HE comes out complaining about fans' negativity.

He's been losing weight ever since Dark Star died. Might be he has a whole new rosy outlook on life now.

gunnarthor
03-08-2013, 09:50 AM
Strange thing is, Reusse has always been Mr. Negative. It's funny HE comes out complaining about fans' negativity.

You know, I'd actually disagree with this. Reusse has always been a baseball guy first and foremost. I remember reading some of his columns in the 90s and he was trying to talk himself into Matt Walbeck and Rich Becker and he'd often write about how wonderful it would be if the Twins had a Camden yards of their own. He's pretty plugged into the Twins and has stood up to defend Mauer multiple times. He's not afraid to criticize of course but I think he's always been less negative toward the Twins than the other local teams when he writes.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 09:51 AM
You know, I'd actually disagree with this. Reusse has always been a baseball guy first and foremost. I remember reading some of his columns in the 90s and he was trying to talk himself into Matt Walbeck and Rich Becker and he'd often write about how wonderful it would be if the Twins had a Camden yards of their own. He's pretty plugged into the Twins and has stood up to defend Mauer multiple times. He's not afraid to criticize of course but I think he's always been less negative toward the Twins than the other local teams when he writes.

Bert tore him a new one on Twitter as being extremely negative after Reusse said the Vikings announcers are so homerish they'd fit right in on FSN.


“@1500ESPN_Reusse Very interesting (http://twitter.com/BertBlyleven28/status/234151961480544256) that a guy like you can consistently criticize others when you played what sport? You are Mr. Negative!”
“@1500ESPN_Reusse For years (http://twitter.com/BertBlyleven28/status/234153022790459392) you have been a writer that always looks for the negative. Keep up the good work because you are good at it!”
“@1500ESPN_Reusse I believe (http://twitter.com/BertBlyleven28/status/234156763400794112) weather baseball, football or whatever sport, fans want to hear positive. The ones that don’t, listen to YOU!”

Physics Guy
03-08-2013, 09:51 AM
I've never really liked the uniforms. Can that be a category?

Agree somewhat in that l don't like the ones they wore for the their championship seasons. I have never liked the lower case m hats and have never owned one. I was happy to see them bring back the TC logo. The new road uniforms are fine and a significant upgrade to the gray with pinstripes. I really wish they would make the Saturday throwbacks their full-time home uniforms. They could then use the old powder-blues as an alternate (just kidding).

gunnarthor
03-08-2013, 09:52 AM
As for the article, I guess I'm bummed about the payroll but I believe that falls on ownership. I have absolute trust in Ryan and Gardy to turn the team around and I've always liked following the minor leagues so I'm happy to watch a rebuild. Last year's adopt a prospect thing was fun and Hicks (my prospect!) turned out to have a great year. So I guess I'm usually pretty optimistic about the team.

gunnarthor
03-08-2013, 09:54 AM
Bert tore him a new one on Twitter as being extremely negative after Reusse said the Vikings announcers are so homerish they'd fit right in on FSN.

Yeah I remember something about that. Bert also plucked him with a baseball back in the day. I'm not saying Reusse is a Twins cheerleader or apologist but he usually seems fair in his assessments and (in general) tries to see a good path forward.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 09:55 AM
I don't think angry is the right word for me. Disappointed and annoyed. If I didn't care, as USAChief points out, that would be worse....and I'm bordering on that this year. They all have the right to run their business the way they want, but I also have the right to completely disagree if I want. For example, if they don't want to have a competitive payroll, that is their business. But then they should pay extra taxes to pay back the taxpayers of Hennepin county. They can choose their payroll, but if it is below baseball inflation adusted dome days, they should pay us back. Their choice, their business. But, the taxes are not my choice, I have to pay them while they pocket the money. I guess I am perplexed anyone is NOT annoyed by that.

Feel free to run the Twins they way you want, but if you are going to say publicly you will be active in pursuing pitchers, don't expect people to sing Halleluia at this offseason. Would it be better for them if I said nothing, and did not care? I don't think so.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 09:55 AM
Yeah I remember something about that. Bert also plucked him with a baseball back in the day. I'm not saying Reusse is a Twins cheerleader or apologist but he usually seems fair in his assessments and (in general) tries to see a good path forward.

I edited my post above to give you quotes :-)

Winston Smith
03-08-2013, 09:57 AM
Reusse wants to keep his spot in the front of the Twins press box buffett line.
Maybe Patrick and Souhan can co-author a book on the proper etiquette of being a real Twins fan. Never a negative word from those two.

John Bonnes
03-08-2013, 09:57 AM
Strange thing is, Reusse has always been Mr. Negative. It's funny HE comes out complaining about fans' negativity.

He seems more like a contrarian, which makes this even funnier. Whichever way the stream is flowing, Reusse will be fighting the current.

That might seem admirable to some, but I wonder if it's any different than parroting the mob mentality. Either way, you don't really get to choose the side. This one is just more work. (With a payoff of more attention.)

It is interesting that this same story was not written in 2010. Because that's the time when you could really tell who the haters that fell into each of these categories were. If, during a 95 win season, and after six postseason appearances in the last decade, you can still grump about one of these four things, you might be a little unhinged.

But right now, it's the exact opposite:

If, after two 90+ loss seasons, plus being on the verge of another, plus a $30+ million payroll decrease over the last two years, plus an offseason where the biggest free agent signing is almost universally panned, AND finally not looking at a truly competitive team for at least a couple more years....if after all that, you feel the need to look at a fan base that is pessimistic and describe them as "haters"....then you might be the one who is a little unhinged.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 09:59 AM
Great post John....

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 09:59 AM
He seems more like a contrarian, which makes this even funnier. Whichever way the stream is flowing, Reusse will be fighting the current.

That might seem admirable to some, but I wonder if it's any different than parroting the mob mentality. Either way, you don't really get to choose the side. This one is just more work. (With a payoff of more attention.)

It is interesting that this same story was not written in 2010. Because that's the time when you could really tell who the haters that fell into each of these categories were. If, during a 95 win season, and after six postseason appearances in the last decade, you can still grump about one of these four things, you might be a little unhinged.

But right now, it's the exact opposite:

If, after two 90+ loss seasons, plus being on the verge of another, plus a $30+ million payroll decrease over the last two years, plus an offseason where the biggest free agent signing is almost universally panned, AND finally not looking at a truly competitive team for at least a couple more years....if after all that, you feel the need to look at a fan base that is pessimistic and describe them as "haters"....then you might be the one who is a little unhinged.

Nice post!

Brock Beauchamp
03-08-2013, 10:07 AM
For example, Aaron Hicks. We've had a long and ugly discussion about him in several places on this board. But only one poster had the courage to show her enthusiasm at what she sees: a star in the making--a quieter, switch hitting Torii Hunter with patience. The moment she posted it, there were a bunch of haters saying a) The Twins would be idiots to keep him in April because of salary and team control issues down the road b) he's not ready because he strikes out to much or whatever, c) he's had a couple of bad years in the minors so he's obviously not as good as the experts claim, or d) unlike all you optimists, I saw him play once and he went 0-4 with three strikeouts.

Virtually nobody on this board is down on Hicks. A few (myself included, though I'm not adamant on the subject) want to see him get a little time in Rochester. We don't predict doom-and-gloom for the guy... In fact, it's the exact opposite. We're excited to see him play but want to make sure he's ready for the big leagues before tossing him into the fire and think that managing his clock at the same time is a good idea.

If we were all down on him and didn't think he was deserving of his top 100 prospect status, why would we care about his service clock?

Yet somehow, restrained excitement = Negative Nelly while a poster's positive-yet-not-based-on-anything-more-than-position-comp is "courageous".

gunnarthor
03-08-2013, 10:11 AM
If, after two 90+ loss seasons, plus being on the verge of another, plus a $30+ million payroll decrease over the last two years, plus an offseason where the biggest free agent signing is almost universally panned, AND finally not looking at a truly competitive team for at least a couple more years....if after all that, you feel the need to look at a fan base that is pessimistic and describe them as "haters"....then you might be the one who is a little unhinged.

Come on, John, you're better than that. I think the 'haters' are the people that are unrealistic fans who just want to bitch. No one is happy about the losing but unless you're the Yankees you can't be up forever. The team plummeted to the bottom but they already have one of the top farm systems in baseball and a GM with a track record of fixing things. It's not like the Twins are becoming the Pirates or Royals. They'll have a few down years - although this is probably going to be the worst one - and cycle back up. Not sure we need to hate on Ryan or Gardy for that.

Alex
03-08-2013, 10:23 AM
Virtually nobody on this board is down on Hicks. A few (myself included, though I'm not adamant on the subject) want to see him get a little time in Rochester. We don't predict doom-and-gloom for the guy... In fact, it's the exact opposite. We're excited to see him play but want to make sure he's ready for the big leagues before tossing him into the fire and think that managing his clock at the same time is a good idea.

If we were all down on him and didn't think he was deserving of his top 100 prospect status, why would we care about his service clock?

Yet somehow, restrained excitement = Negative Nelly while a poster's positive-yet-not-based-on-anything-more-than-position-comp is "courageous".

Thanks for this post. That's my perspective on Hicks, too, not to mention what also frustrates me about posts like cmathewson's where honest analysis/criticism is taken as such a negative. People on this board who are critical of some of the team's moves don't follow the team and just read fangraphs? Ridiculous.

As for Reusse's article, it takes the same tact, arguing to a perspective that is on the fringes. Most people don't fall into those categories at all. I would say that there are parts of 1-3 that are true, but that there are incredibly few people who actually fall into those categories.

One other thing I think Reusse missed in his article is that not only is it easier to be heard via social media. It's also easier to get information. This allows people to be more aware of what other perspectives are out there besides the information the Twins are feeding the news reporters. A great example of this is the perspective we saw last season from media outlets and the Twins on players like Dozier (I think he was called the Next Big Thing) and Marquis (called a "control" pitcher with similar BB/9 to Liriano). Most people looking and listening beyond what the Twins predicted (perhaps we even looked at some statistics on fangraphs!) that their transitions would not go well.

TiberTwins
03-08-2013, 10:26 AM
I think this board and the Strib board are not representative of the heart of Twins fans. More like fringe groups on either end of one rug.

The Strib board haters don't pay close attention to the team, but they have their "big money" hatred. If the team gets a new stadium, they should win it all every year. Anything less is a crime against the taxpayers. And Mauer is the chief perpetrator.

The other fringe, which I see on this board quite a bit, are people who don't pay close attention to the team, but think they can get everything they need to know from Fangraphs. They ignore trends and improvement, and find whatever negative stat they can to show how player X will suck this year. Then they multiply it out over the whole team and a 65-win team is born.

Unfortunately, we have the silent majority that makes up most of the rug, those who are routinely called cool-aid drinkers on this board. Folks like you and me are naturally optimistic, want to root for the team and not against it, and look for reasons to be optimistic.

For example, Aaron Hicks. We've had a long and ugly discussion about him in several places on this board. But only one poster had the courage to show her enthusiasm at what she sees: a star in the making--a quieter, switch hitting Torii Hunter with patience. The moment she posted it, there were a bunch of haters saying a) The Twins would be idiots to keep him in April because of salary and team control issues down the road b) he's not ready because he strikes out to much or whatever, c) he's had a couple of bad years in the minors so he's obviously not as good as the experts claim, or d) unlike all you optimists, I saw him play once and he went 0-4 with three strikeouts.

All the haters miss a crucial fact: The other candidates are either not ready (Benson) or not regulars (Mastroiani). So let's just accept the fact that he's the best player available right now and will likely win the job. And why not get excited about a BA top 100 prospect entering his rookie season? What is wrong with enjoying the thought of that?

The haters equate being negative to being critical. And somehow, if you're not critical, you're an idiot. News flash, you can be critical and still be positive. You can say Hicks has work to do on his outfield throws and still say he's an exciting player. You can pick apart his game and still say he's as good as Span right now and has much higher upside. That's the fun of being a fan. No player is perfect. All players fail two thirds of the time. But are they good enough to help the team win over the long season? If so, and you can provide good reasons why, stating them doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you smarter than the haters who paint in black and white, and mostly black.

Thank for so eloquently stating what happens on this board so often. This team has sucked for two years. It happens in the cycle of baseball franchises. Our owners are not willing to spend huge amounts of cash that they have and that is their decision. Mistakes were made by members of the front office and those were soundly bashed and beaten to death. I would add that people will not let go of mistakes made and move on. I have season tickets and fully realize that they will probably not have a good record this year. I am excited to see some of the talent for the future and enjoy outdoor baseball. I enjoy reading the statheads comments and appreciate their effort to understand the players abilities and flaws. I don't have the time to look at those things but realize that they are part of the game. The bitterness posted by some is unfortunate but I tend to skip through those posts and move on to those I feel contribute to the forum.

Boom Boom
03-08-2013, 10:29 AM
There's always angry fans of every team. This is not unique to the Twins. I don't understand Reusse's point.

stringer bell
03-08-2013, 10:39 AM
Much like several others, I think the payroll shell game is not being honest with the public. I also wonder if the whole organization is stuck in a system that worked a decade ago, but might not be successful any more. I pass very little blame to Gardenhire and don't think Mauer is the problem except that it is very tough for the face of the franchise to be a catcher.

ND-Fan
03-08-2013, 10:40 AM
I have been a fan since i was little boy and lived through up and downs with the Twins. The things that frustrate me most is when management won't just tell the truth that they are rebuilding and tell how they are going to do it. Don't come out say one thing like last fall with the impression they were going to add talent by free agency to help compete until good young talent coming up is here and basically do nothing but fill in with bottom tier of talent and not even address thier middle infielder depth. I like the young talent Twins have and i hope Hicks can be big star this year will mean the Twins will have better year than expected. I like what Cubs management said one night on MLB that they were rebuilding but were adding pitching depth in case this group played better than expected and they would have chance to compete. I think Terry Ryan can rebuild this team but i get frustrated at pace he does it and i think the new school of sabermetrics could help them do it quicker. Gardy i think is still one of better managers if he has talent to make the moves he likes in the game but you cann't be very good manager if your starting pitching gives up 4 to 5 runs before the 5 th inning. Joe Mauer is still elite player in the game of baseball and his drop in power i think is soley because of Target field. Target Field takes away power Twins had in Metrodome and makes hitters adjust to hitting differently. I saw analysis of Mauers home runs when he was in Metrodome and compared to Target field more than half would have been fly balls in target field. I think i am like a lot of Twins fans frustrated would like to hear how Twins are going to get competitive again and
how Twins are achieving these goal because if there not spending it on talent now are they increasing their spending to get player in minor league system etc.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 10:56 AM
Like Reusse, Chief, and quite a few of you, I'm a 50-year fan. These categories don't fit me and my friends. Over the decades, I've been dissappointed and disagreed with many decisions, and sometimes I'm even proven wrong. Like about 90% of the time. I like hearing criticism from knowledgable and passionate fans.

My only complaint is against commenters who hide behing their anonymity and take personal pot-shots at people who are not able to defend themselves. The "victims" of those personal insults tend to be wealthy and in the public eye, but that doesn't make them fair game.

I'm a Reusse fan. He's got heart. And I love it that he's taking a shot at the behavior of constantly negative, mean-spirited know-it-alls.

Badsmerf
03-08-2013, 11:02 AM
I guess when you hate on the Twins you have to fall into a category. Put me in the category that has paid attention to how other teams have been winning and criticize the Twins are making blatantly obvious poor decisions. Its pieces like this I can't stand. The Twins deserve to get blasted when they finish with over 90 losses in back-to-back season, they deserve to get blasted for their complete disregard of the FA while slashing payroll to almost metrodome level. When writers like Reusse put things like this up it makes fans think they don't have a right to be critical, which is completely wrong. Right now Twins fans shouldn't be happy, their team sucks after a decade of mild success.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 11:04 AM
I agree with Badsmerf, why would we not be criticizing them at this point? I'm confused....

zenser
03-08-2013, 11:07 AM
At the end of the day, I want to see the Twins succeed. I don't just want them to make the playoffs, I want them to win in the playoffs. Some may call me a hater for my stances on this team. Like all of you, I call myself a passionate fan.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-08-2013, 11:16 AM
I'm not angry about any of those things, in reality teams like the Twins go through good stretches and bad stretches (in all sports really). It is smart to rebuild now and go for another 7-8 year window of winning like the Twins just came off of.

I am a little frustrated with the Pohlads, but that is what it is, everyone hates sports owners.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 11:29 AM
I love the Wilfs. They went into debt to fix the practice facilities, they put up a ton of money for the stadium, they spend most of the salary cap every year. The year they were good, they brought in free agents to try to get over the top. so not everyone hates sports' owners....

cmathewson
03-08-2013, 11:32 AM
Those four states were taken directly from a thread yesterday. I'm glad you're not down on Hicks. Several people were. Those who weren't emphasized the need to send him down to stop his clock for another year. Only a couple of people in a 145-comment thread thought he should come north.

Willihammer
03-08-2013, 11:32 AM
I love the Wilfs. They went into debt to fix the practice facilities, they put up a ton of money for the stadium, they spend most of the salary cap every year. The year they were good, they brought in free agents to try to get over the top. so not everyone hates sports' owners....

Big fan of Leopold too

Brock Beauchamp
03-08-2013, 11:38 AM
Those four states were taken directly from a thread yesterday. I'm glad you're not down on Hicks. Several people were. Those who weren't emphasized the need to send him down to stop his clock for another year. Only a couple of people in a 145-comment thread thought he should come north.

I just read through that entire thread and one person said Hicks might fail because he strikes out too often.

Well, it's true. He might fail because he strikes out too often. He strikes out a lot. Other than that, the vast majority fell into the "I'm not sure he's ready but I have high hopes for him" camp.

Don't you see that people wanting Hicks to get a little more seasoning are actually high on him as a player? If they were down on him, they wouldn't care if his clock started yesterday.

You're calling blind optimism "courageous" and reasoned restraint "negative". It makes no sense. Some of the biggest Hicks supporters are the ones who want to see him handled carefully because they like his future so much that they want to see the Twins get the absolute most they can out of the kid. Just because they're not standing up and screaming about how much they just addddooooooooore Hicks and his three Spring Training dingers doesn't mean they aren't excited about his future with the team. It's the exact opposite, actually.

snepp
03-08-2013, 11:41 AM
Those four states were taken directly from a thread yesterday. I'm glad you're not down on Hicks. Several people were. Those who weren't emphasized the need to send him down to stop his clock for another year. Only a couple of people in a 145-comment thread thought he should come north.

You're really stretching things here to support that horse you've climbed up on.

JB_Iowa
03-08-2013, 11:41 AM
My dissatisfaction with the Twins probably includes something from each of those elements (not much of #4, though) but overall, my major complaint is just that they seem stuck in a rut to me. Even with the changes in the coaching staff, I have no faith that TR will ever take enough risks (or risk enough money) to really build a team that can contend with the very best in the league. And while I believe that Gardenhire's even keel philosophy has been very beneficial in the regular season, I find it impossible to see him as a good post-season motivator or leader. And maybe that ties into my Mauer complaint as well, I'm just not sure that if this is "Joe Mauer's team" they'll ever have that post-season success (his personality works for him - I'm just not sure his leadership works for the team). Overall, these probably aren't factors to worry about for the next couple of years anyway but I just don't have any faith that this leadership can ever build or lead a team that truly has prospects of post-season success. (As for the money thing, it makes me angry that they cut the budget as much as they did this year -- even though I don't see the team competing, they do seem to owe it to the fans and taxpayers to put the best team they can afford on the field -- and from everything we've seen, they can afford more than $75-$80 million).

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 11:42 AM
I love the Wilfs. They went into debt to fix the practice facilities, they put up a ton of money for the stadium, they spend most of the salary cap every year. The year they were good, they brought in free agents to try to get over the top. so not everyone hates sports' owners....
I love the Pohlads. They bought the team from Calvin. They put up a ton of money for the stadium, They spent their entire draft and international allottments. And now that the stadium revenue is in place and the strategy of building from within is about to pay huge dividends, as evidenced by their fabulous pipeline of prospects, they'll have the budget to get over the top. so not everyone hates sports' owners....

But hey, Mr. Wilf. It's meaningless to just get to the playoffs, you know. You have to aspire for more than mediocrity.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 11:45 AM
I have never said it is meaningless to get to the playoffs, never. Here I tried to post a positive thought, and it gets turned around with negativity. Maybe Reusse is right after all.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 11:49 AM
I just drew a positive analogy, mike. Nothing negative about that.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 11:51 AM
I have never said it is meaningless to get to the playoffs, never. Here I tried to post a positive thought, and it gets turned around with negativity. Maybe Reusse is right after all.

By one person...who is apparently a staunch defender of the Pohlads...what with them so spending SO much for a ballpark for their own team (not even the majority of the cost) and them threating to move the team (oh, wait, they NEVER would have done that, would they?) Offering up the team for contraction (oh wait, that must not have happened. Pohalds wouldn't do that) and them spending so much in the draft even though their allotment was the highest due to the amount of high picks they had...shocking they'd spend more than anyone else in that situation...shocking! :-).

They are the model owners. Pay homage and don't put any owner above them...sounds like one of the Commandments :-)

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 11:56 AM
I just drew a positive analogy, mike. Nothing negative about that.

I must have totally misinterpreted the point of your last sentence then, because it sure sounded negative when I read it.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 11:58 AM
I must have totally misinterpreted the point of your last sentence then, because it sure sounded negative when I read it.

It's exactly how it sounded...

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 12:07 PM
Point of clarification, did they spend their draft allotment last year? I thought they did not. Not that it mattered, I don't think. I think nothing they did would have changed had they decided to spend it, just curious about the facts, that's all. I don't think, for example, they would have taken a different player later on, that needed more money....

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 12:15 PM
Point of clarification, did they spend their draft allotment last year? I thought they did not. Not that it mattered, I don't think. I think nothing they did would have changed had they decided to spend it, just curious about the facts, that's all. I don't think, for example, they would have taken a different player later on, that needed more money....

Their draft allotment was 12.3M. Do we know what they spent?

Physics Guy
03-08-2013, 12:21 PM
I've lost track whether the criticisms posted in this thread are directed at Reusse or at other comments. My head is spinning a bit. I agree with John that this would have been interesting had it been written in 2010 when the Twins were doing well. I have no doubt there were still people angry at the Twins that year. While I enjoy reading Reusse's columns, I don't always agree with him. He certainly has a cynical side to him, but I don't consider him negative. When I was younger, I had a hard time reading him as I thought he was too negative. Now I consider him more of a realist because I no longer feel that the teams I follow can do no wrong. Reusse is a lifetime follower of baseball and I always enjoy his articles about amateur ball in Minnesota. I agreed with his ending that if you can't get excited about a prospect stepping up to take a spot that has clearly been opened for him, then you really have a hard time getting excited about anything.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 12:36 PM
I must have totally misinterpreted the point of your last sentence then, because it sure sounded negative when I read it.
No, no, mike. It's my bad. You see, you made a positive comment about the Wilfs in a Twins blog. And you see, I mistakenly interpreted it as an attempt to contrast the Wilfs to Pohlads, thereby painting the Pohlads in a negative light.

But now that you tell me that you only intended to be positive about the Wilfs, well that's different and I apologize for misinterpreting your point.

But even IF you had intended to draw a negative comparison, I sure wouldn't have a problem with you expressing a negative opinion. However, I would have drawn an analogy, like I did, to point out what I think is a typical fallacy in the viewpoint of some, that fallacy being that the Vikes owner is generous and the Twins owner is a scoundrel. And the playoff reference? Just an extension of the comparison

woolywoolhouse
03-08-2013, 12:38 PM
Is there a "Blame Butera" category? Did it replace the "Blame Punto?"

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 12:42 PM
Their draft allotment was 12.3M. Do we know what they spent?

They spent all their international allottment, and all but perhaps a few hundred thousand of their draft allottment. They spent more on the draft and international markets than the next highest spender by a factor greater than 10%. They signed the #7 and #22 ranked international prospects, and then shelled out another $500k for a third prospect.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 12:50 PM
They spent all their international allottment, and all but perhaps a few hundred thousand of their draft allottment. They spent more on the draft and international markets than the next highest spender by a factor greater than 10%. They signed the #7 and #22 ranked international prospects, and then shelled out another $500k for a third prospect.

They had the highest allotment for the draft...1.2M more than the #2 team...about 10%.

Winston Smith
03-08-2013, 12:59 PM
I love the Pohlads. They bought the team from Calvin. They put up a ton of money for the stadium, They spent their entire draft and international allottments. And now that the stadium revenue is in place and the strategy of building from within is about to pay huge dividends, as evidenced by their fabulous pipeline of prospects, they'll have the budget to get over the top. so not everyone hates sports' owners....

But hey, Mr. Wilf. It's meaningless to just get to the playoffs, you know. You have to aspire for more than mediocrity.

Don't forget that the Pohlads were going to contract the Twins, as in no more Twins baseball, take the money and give the fans the finger. For me it will take a long time to get over that if ever!

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 01:00 PM
Got it, thanks. Like I said, I do not think the spending influenced their draft at all. I think they picked the guys they wanted. As for the wilf post, I was just responding to the statement that people hate owners, I was talking about the Wilds, which did not in any way reflect on the Pohlads. It is like when you compliment person x, and person y takes it as a criticism of them. They have nothing to do with each other. Nothing at all.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:02 PM
Don't forget that the Pohlads were going to contract the Twins, as in no more Twins baseball, take the money and give the fans the finger. For me it will take a long time to get over that if ever!

not only that, earlier he threatened to move them...well, not move the team in as much as sell it to a guy who he knew would move the team to, I believe, N Carolina?

'Back in 1997, the Twins didn’t just threaten to leave, Carl Pohlad actually signed a letter of intent forcing them to be sold to a North Carolina businessman who planned to move the team. According to the legal agreement, the state’s only escape clause was to pass a stadium bill during the November 1997 legislative special session, and even then Carl Pohlad would have been required to reimburse the purchaser up to $100,000. '

Here's a good read: http://www.apple-pie.org/ttp/memos/debunking_the_misinformation_about_threats.htm

Just the kind of owners to emulate...if you're an owner maybe...

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 01:08 PM
I love the Pohlads. They bought the team from Calvin. They put up a ton of money for the stadium .

The Tigers owner Mike Illitch paid for 66% of Comerica park, the Cardinals paid for 88% of the New Busch stadium while the Pohlads only paid 33% for theirs. Illitch paid $175 million for his $300 million stadium, the Cardinals ownership paid $320 million of their $365 million stadium while the Carl Pohlad paid $125 million for his $585 million stadium.

The Tigers and Cardinals are the teams the Twins should look to as one is the cream of the AL Central, while the other is the cream of the comparable market-size. As fans we got a bad break. It was good that Carl Pohlad bought the team from the even more mizerly Calvin Griffith but the improvement was not great. There aren't too many good things you can say about a man who made his fortune buying up risky mortgages during the Great Depression so he could immediately foreclose on the unfortunate families as soon as they were a minute late on a payment.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:13 PM
Don't forget that the Pohlads were going to contract the Twins, as in no more Twins baseball, take the money and give the fans the finger. For me it will take a long time to get over that if ever!

Carl is dead, Winston. Let's judge Jim Pohlad on HIS merits.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:19 PM
Oh, and I was one who, despite my love affair for the Twins since Pedro Ramos, wanted ZERO public subsidy. I was just as willing to give Carl Pohlad the finger as Winston thinks Carl was willing to give the fans.

Here's my question for those of you who are so morally outraged at the mere thought of a public subsidy that benefits a private enterprise: can you name me one additional example of this that gets your dander up?

That's what I thought.

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Here's my question for those of you who are so morally outraged at the mere thought of a public subsidy that benefits a private enterprise: can you name me one additional example of this that gets your dander up?

That's what I thought.

I don't mind public subsidies, but I'd like to hear you justify the fact that the Pohlad's demanded the public pay for so much more than the ownership groups in St. Louis and Detroit? The figures are above.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:29 PM
nicksaviking, making Carl Pohlad sound like Ebeneezer Scrooge unredeemed is so damned easy. Also unfair. Now, it's possible you have absolutely NO idea of the many many charitable contributions he's made. It's also possible you ignore it, because it would interfere with your agenda. So, pick your poison. Are you ignorant, or just uncharitable?

And Puck, isn't it possible to defend fair treatment of all stripes, even if it includes a wealthy owner of a baseball team? I haven't asked you to stop criticizing anyone, including the living Pohlads. I'm just challenging you to spit out a fact on occasion.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:30 PM
nicksaviking, making Carl Pohlad sound like Ebeneezer Scrooge unredeemed is so damned easy. Also unfair. Now, it's possible you have absolutely NO idea of the many many charitable contributions he's made. It's also possible you ignore it, because it would interfere with your agenda. So, pick your poison. Are you ignorant, or just uncharitable?

And Puck, isn't it possible to defend fair treatment of all stripes, even if it includes a wealthy owner of a baseball team? I haven't asked you to stop criticizing anyone, including the living Pohlads. I'm just challenging you to spit out a fact on occasion.

I have...which thing did I write in this discussion that wasn't a fact?

-I said that the team was offered up for contraction by ownership. True.
-I said the team was almost moved due to Carl's actions. True.
-I said they didn't spend a huge amount for the new stadium (obviously as compared to other recently). True.
-I mentioned their draft allotment was higher than anyone's. About 10% higher than the 2nd highest draft allotment. True.

Nice try with the whole 'spitting out a fact on occasion' comment...great debate tactic. Even better when it's true.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:33 PM
I don't mind public subsidies, but I'd like to hear you justify the fact that the Pohlad's demanded the public pay for so much more than the ownership groups in St. Louis and Detroit? The figures are above.
I won't, because I'm 100% in agreement with you on this point. Some, probably including the Pohlad Companies, might say, "Hey, it's business. Strike the best bargain you can." I would have told them to pack their bags.

But to turn around, Nick, and paint a picture of mean old Carl, grinning from ear to ear as he kicks old ladies out of their double-wide? C'mon.

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 01:37 PM
nicksaviking, making Carl Pohlad sound like Ebeneezer Scrooge unredeemed is so damned easy. Also unfair. Now, it's possible you have absolutely NO idea of the many many charitable contributions he's made. It's also possible you ignore it, because it would interfere with your agenda. So, pick your poison. Are you ignorant, or just uncharitable?

And Puck, isn't it possible to defend fair treatment of all stripes, even if it includes a wealthy owner of a baseball team? I haven't asked you to stop criticizing anyone, including the living Pohlads. I'm just challenging you to spit out a fact on occasion.

Are you saying he atoned for his sins by donating to charities? He was the villian in The Grapes of Wrath for crying out loud. He was part of the problem long before he was part of the solution.

Still wondering why you won't address the disproportionate amount of stadium funding he contributed, you were the one to brought it up originally.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:37 PM
But to turn around, Nick, and paint a picture of mean old Carl, grinning from ear to ear as he kicks old ladies out of their double-wide? C'mon.

He wrote this: There aren't too many good things you can say about a man who made his fortune buying up risky mortgages during the Great Depression so he could immediately foreclose on the unfortunate families as soon as they were a minute late on a payment. '

What isn't true there?

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:42 PM
Still wondering why you won't address the disproportionate amount of stadium funding he contributed, you were the one to bring it up originally.

Cause he can't win that argument. Just like he says I have no facts but hasn't even addressed any points that I wrote that he thinks aren't true.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:49 PM
I have...which thing did I write in this discussion that wasn't a fact?

-I said that the team was offered up for contraction by ownership. True.
-I said the team was almost moved due to Carl's actions. True.
-I said they didn't spend a huge amount for the new stadium (obviously as compared to other recently). True.
-I mentioned their draft allotment was higher than anyone's. About 10% higher than the 2nd highest draft allotment. True.

Nice try with the whole 'spitting out a fact on occasion' comment...great debate tactic. Even better when it's true.
Spitting out a couple facts while ignoring the full body of work? That's essentially a mild form of dishonesty.

mike wants wins
03-08-2013, 01:51 PM
And here all I tried to do was indicate that not everyone hated every owner.....and then this broke out. Alas.....

You want a list of public subsidies that get my dander up? This website can't hold that much content, frankly, and it touches on the no politics edge, so I'll just say, I am not a fan of most subsidies. I think they are generally a bad investment for the taxpayer. I actually have less issue with the stadium than many other subsidies.....I just think that if you are going to beg for one for a decade, you ought to then spend the extra income, rather than pocket it. If you don't want to spend it on the team, then pay back the taxpayers in the years you underspend.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:55 PM
Spitting out a couple facts while ignoring the full body of work? That's essentially a mild form of dishonesty.


No it isn't...it's what you did in this argument...exactly what you did. You praised the Pohlads as great owners, failed to mention them offering the team up for contraction...failed to mention their constant threats for the team to be sold and moved. Why is that, exactly? You praised their spending on this last draft, more than 10% more than the next team, but fail to mention they had the most to spend, allotment -wise, to begin with...about 10% more than the team with the 2nd most to spend.

Talk about lack of full disclosure.

You want me to include the Pohlad's full body of work, you first...and understand that offering up the team for contraction and almost ensuring the moving of our team is HUGE.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:56 PM
Are you saying he atoned for his sins by donating to charities? He was the villian in The Grapes of Wrath for crying out loud. He was part of the problem long before he was part of the solution.

Still wondering why you won't address the disproportionate amount of stadium funding he contributed, you were the one to brought it up originally.

First, you're allowed to believe what you want to believe about Carl Pohlad. I couldn't care less, but I think your depiction is bizzarrely extreme, to say the least. And you had to be reminded that perhaps there's more to his story, didn't you?

And yes. I DID address the funding issue. I didn't support it then and worked to fire my legislators because of it. What part of this is confusing to you?

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 01:57 PM
I won't, because I'm 100% in agreement with you on this point. Some, probably including the Pohlad Companies, might say, "Hey, it's business. Strike the best bargain you can." I would have told them to pack their bags.

But to turn around, Nick, and paint a picture of mean old Carl, grinning from ear to ear as he kicks old ladies out of their double-wide? C'mon.

He wasn't old at the time, he was quite young then. Your defense of the Pohlad's is pretty steadfast, if you know them I'm sorry I've offended and I respect you sticking up for them if that is the case.

That being said, I have/had little to no respect for Carl Pohlad. He manipulated the state of Minnesota in every underhanded way he could concieve. He took advantage of it's citizens from the first farm he foreclosed on, to the current tax payers that he demanded more from than he justly should have.

As for the kids, hopefully the apples fell far from the tree. That's not often the case with children who were exposed to extreme weath, but I do not know them.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 01:58 PM
Puck, you and I are done. You made your points. Boy, was I ever off base.

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 01:58 PM
First, you're allowed to believe what you want to believe about Carl Pohlad. I couldn't care less, but I think your depiction is bizzarrely extreme, to say the least. And you had to be reminded that perhaps there's more to his story, didn't you?

And yes. I DID address the funding issue. I didn't support it then and worked to fire my legislators because of it. What part of this is confusing to you?

maybe the part where you praised how much they spent on the ballpark?

ThePuck
03-08-2013, 02:01 PM
Looks like I've been dismissed...oh well.

snepp
03-08-2013, 02:03 PM
Looks like I've been dismissed...oh well.

Dismissed perhaps, but not ignored!

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 02:12 PM
Oh I forgot, my vote is for #1, though Reusse's hyperbole is annoying.

No sane fan thinks any owner would spend unlimited money, nor would any sane Twins fan think the team would spend East Coast kind of money.

The hyperbole for option two is also awful. Few say Ryan shouldn't rebuild, most just agree that he didn't need to put such little effort into free agency this year.

Way to be objective Reusse!

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 02:20 PM
He wasn't old at the time, he was quite young then. Your defense of the Pohlad's is pretty steadfast, if you know them I'm sorry I've offended and I respect you sticking up for them if that is the case.

That being said, I have/had little to no respect for Carl Pohlad. He manipulated the state of Minnesota in every underhanded way he could concieve. He took advantage of it's citizens from the first farm he foreclosed on, to the current tax payers that he demanded more from than he justly should have.

As for the kids, hopefully the apples fell far from the tree. That's not often the case with children who were exposed to extreme weath, but I do not know them.

As a matter of fact, I do know a number of them, nick. I've never benefitted financially from having known any member of three generations of Pohlads that I've met, but yes, I know a part of the stories of a few of them, and I've personally witnessed impressive displays of personal generousity and charity. I've been exposed to their business practices too. And while the reviews, including my own, aren't perfect, they get very high grades overall out there for fair treatment of employees and for their ethics. If you cared to research this, you'll find this to be the most commonly-held opinion by people who have actual experience and knowledge of these things.

But my objection isn't personal. It's about unfair vitriol. Directed at ANYONE. You're guilty of that, nick. Happens your hatred is towards Carl for whatever reasons.

And this notion that a kid who's exposed to whatever environment is to be pre-judged? That's an insipid form of prejudice. Does a poor kid get the same treatment from you?

LaBombo
03-08-2013, 02:22 PM
Looks like I've been dismissed...oh well.

Don't feel too bad. You made some good points, but using mere logic to tackle a post with "love" and "Pohlads" in the same sentence is like handling anti-matter with salad tongs.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 02:37 PM
Don't feel too bad. You made some good points, but using mere logic to tackle a post with "love" and "Pohlads" in the same sentence is like handling anti-matter with salad tongs.

Especially when you lack the capacity to understand the context of the post and therefore apply ridiculous "mere logic", LaBombo. And when your heart is ice cold.

Highabove
03-08-2013, 02:37 PM
This is the Man who saved Twins Baseball for all of us, Judge Harry Crump. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_evoBtXXWMAc/Ro18PMN0wQI/AAAAAAAAAE8/mBtteGnzXj8/s1600/crump.gif
The Pohlad's did everything they could to liquidate the Twins and cash in on a big pay day. Judge Crump blocked them.
If the Pohlad's had been successful, this thread along with Twins Daily would not exist.
I am thankful for judge Crump. I have not forgiven the Pohlad's.


USATODAY.com - Judge orders Twins to play next season (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/stories/2001-11-16-contraction.htm)

nicksaviking
03-08-2013, 02:49 PM
But my objection isn't personal. It's about unfair vitriol. Directed at ANYONE. You're guilty of that, nick. Happens your hatred is towards Carl for whatever reasons.

And this notion that a kid who's exposed to whatever environment is to be pre-judged? That's an insipid form of prejudice. Does a poor kid get the same treatment from you?

I never used the word hate, as a rule I generally don't use that word toward people, nor have I attacked you, the vitriol is coming from your side. I've been called ignorant, unchritable and now prejeduced by you since lunch. As for my reasons for my lack of respect, I've listed those already.

I rightly assumed you had a personal connection to the family and appologized that the words said about them wounded, but you're not going to swing the opinion of them on an internet forum by going on the attack. Perhaps they give to charities and maybe they treat their employees decently, but their most high profile venture happens to be one of the states most charished possesions. If they wanted to have an untarnished image, they should have thought about that in their dealings with the one business that is in the media most often. They didn't think that way, or they didn't care, either way they've used the Twins as a weapon to reap huge profits, and all from the pockets of the people who love the team the most.

USAFChief
03-08-2013, 03:05 PM
I was very much in favor of a new, partially publicly funded stadium for the Twins. I, for one, wouldn't have any problem with the portion of stadium costs the Pohlad family was asked to contribute if they were in fact contributing that amount. Instead, they are funding their stadium contribution from stadium revenue at the expense of the team on the field. In effect, they aren't contributing any of their own money towards building the stadium. I find that dishonest at best, and that is my problem with the Pohlad family. They got their stadium, their franchise value more than doubled, and they haven't lived up to their end of the bargain.

PseudoSABR
03-08-2013, 03:23 PM
Happy Trolls are just as bad as Hateful Trolls. That some people don't find blind optimism offensive, doesn't mean that pollyanneishness doesn't negatively affect many people's participation in discussion. It offends my intellect when someone brandishes their baseless happy-takes as legitimate. Just as it offends my intellect when someone tries to frame their ideological pessimism as critical analysis. That one narrative unreasonably casts Hicks as the hero and the other defiantly scripts Correia as the villain hardly matters in terms of each's repugnance.

Kwak
03-08-2013, 03:29 PM
Away from the Pohlads and back to Reusse's article--the premise of this thread. He learned his "journalism" from Don Riley decades ago and often repeats the theme of rabid homerism and the derision of outsiders. Well that's part of "Minnesota Nice"--and the folks here drink that Kool-Aid by the gallon. The Twins (and their management) have been bashed bloody this off-season (Reformation) and the Jesuits have been summoned (or should I have used the Russian example? substitute Cossaks then) to beat the "haters" (apostates) back to the "True Faith" (Trust Us and trust Terry). This response was inevitable. The tome expected--"Them" are: unrealistic in their expectations, ungrateful for the gifts bestowed, unappreciative of the wisdom and love provided and must immediately repent or face eternal xxxxnation.

Reusse is bashing those who use electronic media to vent--which is basically what he gets paid to do. He needs a "timeout".

My points of contention with the Twins lie in the following areas: 1) their duplicitious nature 2) their arrogance and 3) their sense of entitlement.

snepp
03-08-2013, 03:35 PM
Especially when you lack the capacity to understand the context of the post and therefore apply ridiculous "mere logic", LaBombo. And when your heart is ice cold.

You seem to be having a problem understanding the difference between attacking an argument, and attacking a poster.

Ease up, or you'll be taking a timeout from the forum.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 03:42 PM
Chief, I'm confused. So, they're paying their agreed-to contribution, right? And out of their own revenue stream, not someone else's, right? I mean, you're certainly not arguing that the stadium revenue, or any other revenue stream, belongs to anyone but the Twins, right? Why do you believe that the stadium revenue is something other than their own revenue? And if it IS their revenue, why do you care if that's the stream they use to pay their obligation?

Now, I totally get the point you and others make that the Twins aren't giving us the product they ought to give us. I partially agree that they're short-changing us in the short-term on the quality of the product.

Where, in the bargain "we" made with the Pohlads, was it promised they would pay their contribution from some other bucket than from their operations? Maybe I'm missing something, Chief, but I don't believe I'm entitled to a better product because of some bargain or promise. I AM entitled to not buy the product if it's crappy or too expensive. And I have chosen to avoid Target Field, sadly, because it pisses me off that MOST of our community can't afford the product. Why? Because Kevin Correia and his ilk deserve $5M, because the Twins and MLB are greedy, and because fans greedily demand that their team jack up their payroll so teams end up paying lightweights like Delmon Young $5 freakin' million dollars.

So, why do we let ourselves off the hook for this whole economic abomination and slap the bullseye on Pohlad? Because we can, I suppose.

Longdistancetwins
03-08-2013, 03:43 PM
I like this and I like Reusse (what little I’ve read of him). My two-cents, as a 45-year, far-off fan, is that I never bought into “The Twins have some of the best fans in the country” line that I often hear. The bulk of local fans are extremely affectionate when we win—and that’s delightful—but the fans that follow most closely and are most knowledgeable are indeed, quite critical. I remember a line in Danny Thompson’s book about how about 1500 fans came out for a game in the mid-1970’s, and they turned out to be the team’s biggest booers. No, they are not quite Phillies fans, but the whole “Minnesota-nice” thing doesn’t wash with me, and that’s fine.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 03:51 PM
Don't feel too bad. You made some good points, but using mere logic to tackle a post with "love" and "Pohlads" in the same sentence is like handling anti-matter with salad tongs.

Help me out, snepps. Was this attacking an argument?

diehardtwinsfan
03-08-2013, 04:01 PM
I'm probably a little bit of 1, 2, and 3, though I don't know if the word "angry" describes what I feel... Disappointment, sure.

I do think that receiving public funding obligates the owners to spend a bit more to keep the team competitive. They did that in 2010, but not so much the last two years.

I like what Terry Ryan is doing for the future with aquisitions like Meyer and May. Like Brock, I feel better aquisitions could have been made for the present that could take a 70 win team and make them an 80 win team. Even in 2009, when we had no business being in the playoffs, I was glued to the race because we were in it.

Gardy has some problems yes, though as others have said, I wasn't a fan of his long before the last two seasons.

USAFChief
03-08-2013, 04:06 PM
Chief, I'm confused... If one wants to understand why diverting money that could (should?) otherwise go to payroll to instead fund stadium costs, it's not hard. On the other hand, if one wants to avoid the point, and pretend the Pohlads are living up to their promised contribution, it's easy to be "confused."

TheLeviathan
03-08-2013, 04:19 PM
Happy Trolls are just as bad as Hateful Trolls. That some people don't find blind optimism offensive, doesn't mean that pollyanneishness doesn't negatively affect many people's participation in discussion. It offends my intellect when someone brandishes their baseless happy-takes as legitimate. Just as it offends my intellect when someone tries to frame their ideological pessimism as critical analysis. That one narrative unreasonably casts Hicks as the hero and the other defiantly scripts Correia as the villain hardly matters in terms of each's repugnance.

I was going to say something akin to this. Chief was right, the real enemy of a team is apathy. But apathy isn't just a cold shoulder to the team, it's also in the form of being so committed to being this ideal of "fan" that you utterly ignore issues that can and SHOULD be criticized so as not to appear negative. Criticism, even harsh criticism, can be productive and positive. This approach, and many on this board seem to possess it, that anything critical or skeptical should be treated as a form of mutiny on their fanhood is completely absurd. But more than that, it is actually LESS helpful to our favorite team.

Our ballclub would be better, now and in the future, if it understood why their "best" free agency move is being panned rather than celebrated. The hope being that if we criticize it and detail why it was an awful baseball decision - perhaps their decision making gets better! Better baseball decisions lead to a better baseball team. Pie-in-the-sky optimism does nothing to help this team. You can lend this analogy to anything - constructive criticism can make for better people. Blind back-patting to keep up a facade of positivity is just another form of lying to someone and to yourself.

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 04:31 PM
If one wants to understand why diverting money that could (should?) otherwise go to payroll to instead fund stadium costs, it's not hard. On the other hand, if one wants to avoid the point, and pretend the Pohlads are living up to their promised contribution, it's easy to be "confused."
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it.

PseudoSABR
03-08-2013, 04:38 PM
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it.In essence, people believe they were sold on a bill of goods when agreeing to fund a public stadium--that the Twins are reneging on the complicit promise that 51% of revenue would be allocated to payroll, rather than some portion of that going back to paying for stadium costs. I don't know to what extent that point is true, but i think it's a legitimate concern given how payroll has decreased significantly this year.

I think it's pretty easy to see why people would be put off by a payroll that has decreased by 20 % from last year. On it's surface, that doesn't look like investment into what has been a last place team, that looks like a cost cutting. I don't mean to speak for Chief, but you are being unfairly obtuse on this point, imo.

snepp
03-08-2013, 04:41 PM
Help me out, snepps. Was this attacking an argument?

Simply put, one post included an insult on another member, the other didn't.

If you feel a warning wasn't justified (as opposed to receiving yet another infraction), you're welcome to bring it to the attention of an administrator.

Riverbrian
03-08-2013, 04:51 PM
Owners Own... Players Play and Fans Fan... Everyone is looking for the best deal and that includes the fans. I'm not going to say that Pohlad should be thanked, worshiped or anything of the like but I'm really not sure how Pohlad is different than any of the other owners in Baseball. They are running a business and they are going to take advantage of you if they can. Just like Best Buy will if they can. They will do what it takes to sell an extra hot dog even if you don't need it. As for the current state of the Twins... It went south in 2010 and the recovery is going to take a little time. Meanwhile... It's a great opportunity for Hicks, Plouffe, Mastro, Gibson, Hendriks, Worley, Correia, Pelfrey, Diamond, Deduno, DeVries, Parmelee, Dozier, Florimon and others to prove they can play major league ball and be part of the organization moving forward... and some of these players just might be worth getting excited about.

USAFChief
03-08-2013, 05:36 PM
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it. I'm not as diplomatic as Pseudo, or as well spoken, but he said it well, read what he said. For the record, though, I'll repeat that IMO any "confusion" on your part is willful.

Thrylos
03-08-2013, 06:05 PM
The haters equate being negative to being critical. And somehow, if you're not critical, you're an idiot. News flash, you can be critical and still be positive. You can say Hicks has work to do on his outfield throws and still say he's an exciting player. You can pick apart his game and still say he's as good as Span right now and has much higher upside. That's the fun of being a fan. No player is perfect. All players fail two thirds of the time. But are they good enough to help the team win over the long season? If so, and you can provide good reasons why, stating them doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you smarter than the haters who paint in black and white, and mostly black.

Agreed.

But using the word "haters" to describe people with different opinions, you automatically become like them, not?

Here is my beef with the Twins (and I really do not care about the payroll and I think that the Twins are blessed to have Mauer. Imagine if he signed somewhere else as a FA, there were going to be a revolution.... ) and their mainsteam fans:

a. This team has not won a title since 1991
b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)
c. Twins' fans think that this was "success" and the press propagated that like crazy. Even if it was better than total suckage, it was not winning World Series.
d. Because of that perceived "success" the press and the fans did not care to see fatal flawsin the way this team has been build and managed and the general cronyism that has been going on.
e. I am convinced that the Twins will not win a World Series again unless they make radical philosophical and personnel changes.

And that was before the last 2 seasons.

Now there are many more voices out there who actually start thinking that, gee, something is wrong being a doormat again. And, unlike Mr Reuss who thinks that 2011 was fully due to injuries and 2012 because of "bad pitching" (Gee, did the GM and the manager assemble that "bad pitching"?) they want their team to change so they can win (again - or at least not be a doormat.)

Thus the perceived anger.

I don't get the whole "hater" thing. If someone does not like Obama's healthcare policies or Bush's wars and publicly speaks about it, is he/she an American hater?

Nope.

We are all Twins' fans. Some of us are just sicker than other of what the people who are running our favorite team have done to it. That's all.

And I hope that the Twins' win it all this season. Really do. That is hope. But my gut says that there need to be changes for that to happen... hasn't happened in 21 going to 22 years now.

And, frakly, this is not "negative". It is critical (and actually positive.) If you are not at a desired state and you are not critical about the desired state you will never improve... And improvement is a good thing I think :)

Win Twins!

birdwatcher
03-08-2013, 06:32 PM
I'm not as diplomatic as Pseudo, or as well spoken, but he said it well, read what he said. For the record, though, I'll repeat that IMO any "confusion" on your part is willful.

I did read what he said Chief. And your right, he IS more diplomatic. Bu I'm not the n being obtuse here. We can disagree and still understand each others point of view, and even respect it. I have very carefully considered your views, Chief. And Pseudo's too.

1. You think you were sold a bill of goods. Most on here agree. I get it that Ryan said he intended to bring in more than one quality starter. The Twins haven't broken a promise. Ryan simply fell short of his and our expectations. They never promised you they'd outbid for players on the free market because of Target Field. What they DID promise was that the stadium would make it easier to retain their own players. What they DID promise is that they'd invest more in their own system. They have NOT broken any promises. They just haven't lived up to your hopes and expectations.

2. TheTwins, and Jim Pohlad specifically, has said the team will spend about half of revenues on payroll, on average. No one promised to spend 51% of revenus each and every year. You may think they owe you an accounting of this. They don't. Payroll dollars have NOT been diverted to pay stadium costs That's a false statement. You can be miffed, but you're not entitled to a single thing you're not getting just because it's what you want and expect.

I'm not the one who's obtuse here, my brothers. Hell, if I go to the BMW dealer, I expect him to sell me a damn car. If he oversells a bit, I'm not going to be morally outraged. I get it. Ryan oversold. It was not smart. And I get that it looks real bad that payroll is down 20%. I get the outrage. I'm not defending that decision. But I'm not outraged. They have been beefing up the farm system for awhile. They just signed two of the top 25 international prospects. They said they were going to buid from within for the most part, and we're beginning to see the goods. Maybe, when the time comes to extend a few of these guys, they'll open up the coffers and spend MORE than 51% for awhile. You are welcome to conclude, right here and now, that this will never happen, or that Pohlad's a lying, cheating SOB, or whatever. Knock yourself out.

Brock Beauchamp
03-08-2013, 06:40 PM
b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)

Not to pick nits, but... I'm going to pick nits.

Winnings divisions and losing in the first round of the playoffs is not mediocre. The Blue Jays were mediocre in the 2000s. Rarely really bad, rarely really good. Somewhere in the middle almost every season. That's mediocrity. Getting to the playoffs 50% of the time cannot qualify as "mediocre" by any definition of the word.

Kwak
03-08-2013, 06:40 PM
Agreed.

But using the word "haters" to describe people with different opinions, you automatically become like them, not?

Here is my beef with the Twins (and I really do not care about the payroll and I think that the Twins are blessed to have Mauer. Imagine if he signed somewhere else as a FA, there were going to be a revolution.... ) and their mainsteam fans:

a. This team has not won a title since 1991
b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)
c. Twins' fans think that this was "success" and the press propagated that like crazy. Even if it was better than total suckage, it was not winning World Series.
d. Because of that perceived "success" the press and the fans did not care to see fatal flawsin the way this team has been build and managed and the general cronyism that has been going on.
e. I am convinced that the Twins will not win a World Series again unless they make radical philosophical and personnel changes.

And that was before the last 2 seasons.

Now there are many more voices out there who actually start thinking that, gee, something is wrong being a doormat again. And, unlike Mr Reuss who thinks that 2011 was fully due to injuries and 2012 because of "bad pitching" (Gee, did the GM and the manager assemble that "bad pitching"?) they want their team to change so they can win (again - or at least not be a doormat.)

Thus the perceived anger.

I don't get the whole "hater" thing. If someone does not like Obama's healthcare policies or Bush's wars and publicly speaks about it, is he/she an American hater?

Nope.

We are all Twins' fans. Some of us are just sicker than other of what the people who are running our favorite team have done to it. That's all.

And I hope that the Twins' win it all this season. Really do. That is hope. But my gut says that there need to be changes for that to happen... hasn't happened in 21 going to 22 years now.

And, frakly, this is not "negative". It is critical (and actually positive.) If you are not at a desired state and you are not critical about the desired state you will never improve... And improvement is a good thing I think :)

Win Twins!

Amen. The cronyism is endemic. The owners get their profits and see no reason to change. We were led to believe Ryan just "burnt-out in September 2007 and needed immediate replacement. Coincidental was a disappointing team result and a significantly higher payroll. Sure.
The assistant is promoted and voil`a Santana is traded and Hunter waved Bu-bye. Payroll builds for "the season" (2010) with veteran players added (I guess this was management's way of thanking the fans). Then disaster. The assistant is reassigned and Ryan has recovered sufficiently to resume as GM. Wow, he gets more effective medical care than the players.
Spin, spin, spin cut deadwood, make trades (more spin--"these guys are gonna be real good" [someday]). Scrape the dumpster, raid the leper colony, cross fingers, and proudly state "we will compete", "we're going to do things 'the right way' , but we don't want to 'block' anybody". Meanwhile, we're supposed to be "good fans", cheering everybody never complaining and "trust in Terry", because the twins "know what's best" [for us].

TheLeviathan
03-08-2013, 06:51 PM
They have NOT broken any promises. They just haven't lived up to your hopes and expectations.

Nope, still being obtuse. (Or do I need to say "obtuse to me" lest I be threatened?) Twisting reality to fit your point of view and then claiming you aren't twisting reality is, almost by definition, obtuse.


Payroll dollars have NOT been diverted to pay stadium costs

You know that how?


You are welcome to conclude, right here and now, that this will never happen, or that Pohlad's a lying, cheating SOB, or whatever. Knock yourself out.

If this was truly welcome, you wouldn't be responding to anyone be it nick, Puck, chief, psuedo, or anyone else. But you've opted to take issue with those claims instead.

Thrylos
03-08-2013, 06:56 PM
I'm not the one who's obtuse here, my brothers. Hell, if I go to the BMW dealer, I expect him to sell me a damn car. If he oversells a bit, I'm not going to be morally outraged. I get it. Ryan oversold. It was not smart. .

Better analogy would be a Chevy dealer, that was part of Mauer's contract :)

As far as the Pohlads are concerned:

- I am thankful for what Jim Pohlad did after he bought the team as far as getting smart baseball minds to run the organization
- I am thankful that Jim Pohlad spent the $ it took to bring in players to win the world series (twice) - and the fans rocked the dome too...

- I have no issue with the (allegedly) "publicly" financed stadium; financed with bonds that are paid by hotel and sales taxes; so if you don't want to stay in a hotel in Hennepin county or buy anything, you are not paying for the stadium
- I have no issue with the payroll or how much they are spending (and if they are spending it for Correia/Capps/Pavano, I'd rather see them spend less)

- I had a huge issue with the contraction. And not only with Pohlad but with Ryan as well. Ryan was wagging his tail when Pohlad did that. At that point, Pohlad was worse than Red McCombs. Sell your team if you don't like it.
- I have a huge issue that the Pohlads have practically spat in the face of the franchise history (which by agreement Griffith brought with him). It was maybe because a lot was part of the Griffith family and he wanted to cut the cord, but it is horrible to have a founding franchise of the American league, with plenty of Hall of Famers, including probably the best pitcher who ever threw a pitch and there is zip recognition of the fact. It is like the Twins' materialized from outer space into MN in 1960.

Thrylos
03-08-2013, 06:58 PM
Not to pick nits, but... I'm going to pick nits.

Winnings divisions and losing in the first round of the playoffs is not mediocre. The Blue Jays were mediocre in the 2000s. Rarely really bad, rarely really good. Somewhere in the middle almost every season. That's mediocrity. Getting to the playoffs 50% of the time cannot qualify as "mediocre" by any definition of the word.

Alright. Semantics

Give it another context then: B instead of A+, how about that? Works? "Mediocre" a C?
If you are fine with being a B student, you will never do what you need to do to be an A student.

Seth Stohs
03-08-2013, 07:23 PM
Point of clarification, did they spend their draft allotment last year? I thought they did not. Not that it mattered, I don't think. I think nothing they did would have changed had they decided to spend it, just curious about the facts, that's all. I don't think, for example, they would have taken a different player later on, that needed more money....

I think the only reason they didn't was because Mazzilli chose not to sign. (9th round pick)

PseudoSABR
03-08-2013, 07:28 PM
Alright. Semantics

Give it another context then: B instead of A+, how about that? Works? "Mediocre" a C?
If you are fine with being a B student, you will never do what you need to do to be an A student.
Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

JB_Iowa
03-08-2013, 07:37 PM
Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

I don't know that anyone is talking about CONSISTENTLY winning in the playoffs. But I (and a few others) darn well think that being competitive in the playoffs means winning some games, if not series. And my aging mind has a hard time remembering that last playoff win despite the numerous appearances in the 2000's.

Thrylos
03-08-2013, 07:38 PM
Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

Agreed. That's why there is a bell curve. Few A's, some Bs a bunch of Cs.

diehardtwinsfan
03-08-2013, 07:49 PM
I think the outrage that some people have over payroll is not the overpaying for a Grienke, but the fact that there were plenty of cheap options out there that would have been huge upgrades and were ignored. The Twins could have easily retained Scott Baker had they wanted to. They could have gotten several other pitchers as well. They didn't. They could have found modest upgrades up the middle. They didn't. They could have spent 100M and put a team out with a decent chance of winning 80 games. They didn't.

They had no problems taking taxpayer money though. I can see why fans are angry about this. If I lived in Minnesota and had to pay those taxes, I'd be livid.

Badsmerf
03-08-2013, 07:53 PM
I was on the Grienke boat... just sayin. Not that I think it would matter too much this season, but add Grienke to this team and 2014 on should be competitive years.

twinzgrl
03-08-2013, 07:58 PM
Just read all the posts...wow...deep...kinda scary for those of us who skew towards pollyannishness (kinda want that to be my new nickname). I think Patrick R. is a curmudgeon. Kinda like a baseball Andy Rooney. He wrote some great pieces back in the glory days about Hrbek, Puckett, Gaetti, and others, and a columnist should get people talking and he certainly has done that today. I just want some pitching. I want guys who can go seven innings, who can get our guys off defense in a timely fashion, who know how to pitch to major league hitters. I don't care where or how much, but if we don't have some quality starting pitching this year we will be doomed to repeat the awfulness that was the last two years. I loved being in a division race....I want to feel that again.

Thrylos
03-08-2013, 08:06 PM
And another thing about this Reusse thing, centering right at Hicks:

Yesterday the kid had the day of his life. Nope. He had the day of any baseball player's life. Celebrate that. We all as Twins' fans did. I am sure he did, I am sure his buddies did.
Check the Strib write up: Yada, yada, yada, and then talk about how he missed the cut off man in a play on the field and hints about that not being the "Twins' way".

I really puked a bit in my mouth when I read that.

and put that into perspective and then talk about negativity and where it is coming from....