Thread: Reusse: Always are Angry Twins Followers

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

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?

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.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

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

Is there a "Blame Butera" category? Did it replace the "Blame Punto?"

Originally Posted by ThePuck

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.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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%.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

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/d...ut_threats.htm

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

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

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.

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.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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.

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.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

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.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

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?

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

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.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

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.