Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

MinnCentric Forums


Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Would you trade Twins Target field for better team in Oakland A's or Tampa Bay Rays?

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 jaimedude2

jaimedude2

    Member

  • Members
  • 781 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 02:59 PM

Bud Selig contends that all of the new stadium situations have resolved teams competitive issues in his farewell tour of Oakland. •"As commissioner Bud Selig makes his farewell tour, he readily admits that he wishes the A’s stadium situation would be resolved and over with, writes Joe Stiglich of CSNBayArea.com. 

 

“One of the reasons for the resurgence of this sport are the new stadiums, there’s no question about it,” Selig said. “I know better than anybody (that the A’s need a new stadium). It was and is complicated. I know people don’t understand that, but it is. And if it was easy, just like if it was easy in Tampa, I’d have been 24 out of 24. But I have hopes in both places. Do I wish it’d been solved? Of course I do. I wish it had.”

 

To me if Selig had been as assertive in pooling local television and broadcasts rights in to a fairer revenue sharing pool amongts all MLB teams, as he has been laser focused on "new stadiums" that the competitive balance of baseball as a whole would be even better.

 

Is it true as Selig asserts that the new stadiums are the ultimate solution and  panecea to a teams troubles or competitive issues in fielding a competive baseball product?

 

Right now the Twins stand in stark contrast to what Selig claims is the new stadium solving a teams competive issues 14 games under 500 and counting in 2014 and solidly in year number four of a potential 90 loss season.

 

There is no doubt that the Twins ownership has benefited from Target field as they have fluctuated from paying revenue sharing to non-evenue sharing. and has more available resources to put a competitive team on the field compared to the Athletics or Rays.

 

As a fan would you trade a competitive team for a dumpy stadium situation like the A's at the Colesium, but a team that is well managed and has been consistently competitve for 5 years now or even the Rays who have been a consistent playoff contender?

I like Target Field but I'm not so sure I wouldn't trade having the A's talent in a crappy stadium then watching the lousy baseball being played at Target field right now.

Edited by jaimedude2, 20 August 2014 - 03:05 PM.


#2 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,703 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:00 PM

I miss the Metrodome, so yes. :)

#3 jaimedude2

jaimedude2

    Member

  • Members
  • 781 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:10 PM

I miss the Metrodome, so yes. :)

 

I sure miss all of the winning the Twins used to do in the Metrodome. I hated the Metrodoem BO, but sure liked the winning ways the Twins had there the last decade.

I  would give up a good Nordeast beer and a dinger dog for a dome dog and the playoff atmosphere we had in 2008 and 2009.

Makes me nostalgic for the Hormel hot dog hall of fame and the Land O'lakes baseball toss in to the pool or truck, and the Dougie baseball T-shirts the kids used to make up.

Sure miss the good old days of being in the race come September.

Edited by jaimedude2, 20 August 2014 - 03:11 PM.


#4 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,121 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:13 PM

It's a false topic - the A's and Rays have had (and will have again) lousy seasons in lousy parks.  2010 was a hell of a lot of fun.  The Twins will start winning again in TF and it will be awesome so I'm ok with some bad seasons in a great park.  TF is a truly great park.  

 

If a genie told me the Twins would always be a 90 win team forever but would have to be in the dome, I'd say sure.  But I was in college during most of the 90s and the dome in sept was usually pretty depressing.


#5 Steve_h

Steve_h

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:14 PM

I miss the sureness of a scheduled game happening at the MetroDome and the comfortable temperatures regardless of the weather, but truthfully, I miss little else about it.

 

The post raises an interesting question but the premise is off. While the final years in the Dome had nice crowds and fun division races, in the 1990s, there was plenty of lackluster years with less promise than the current bunch under the teflon. A market like Minneapolis will likely cycle through ups and downs. 

 

The fans haven't benefitted yet (other than 2010) from a pennant race in a beautiful outside setting like Target Field, but they will. The added revenue has helped rebuild the farm system and allowed the team to spend more than it did in the 1990s (relative to the rest of the league) on payroll. A Phil Hughes signing would not have happened in 1996.


#6 big dog

big dog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,248 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:27 PM

To answer the question, no, I wouldn't trade for a team that is currently competitive.  There are no guarantees that teams remain competitive, and a crappy stadium can last a long, long time.

 

The initial post hits the nail on the head- stadiums help low-income teams, but better pooling of revenues would help a lot more.  The difference is that pooling takes money away from some teams, but new stadiums only take money away from taxpayers (and fans), so it's a lot easier to get the owners to agree to it.  A bigger pie is preferable to more equitable pieces of the same pie.

 

I think an important question for Oakland is whether the Bay Area is really willing to support two teams at a high level.  I lived in the Bay Area in the 80s, and even with very good A's teams (and a much newer stadium) the A's didn't draw well.  The White Sox got Cellular Field and it didn't really do that much for attendance.  Would a new park in Oakland really solve the problem?  I don't think so.  Moving them to San Jose would definitely hurt at least one of the teams- I lived just north of San Jose and that was definitely Giants territory.  I'm not surprised the Giants are opposed to a move to the South Bay.

  • 70charger likes this

#7 jaimedude2

jaimedude2

    Member

  • Members
  • 781 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:27 PM

Wasn't the central argument from Twins ownership in needing the stadium in what ultimately became Target field that they needed additional revenues to keep the team competitive and at least sign there own players.

 

I remember a lot of losing in the Metrodome and all of the really bad baseball in 1996 to 1999, you could buy tickets for $3 and sit in goods seats and there would be lucky if there were 5,000 people in the building in September. The last couple years the baseball on the field had been a lot like 1998 and 1999.

 

I like Target field but it is not such a beautiful place in April when it is 39 degrees out. The luster of having a competitive team and hearing about the great farm system means little until we actually start seeing players that help the team win more games. For every Phil Hughes, there has been a Mike Plefrey signing or Nolasco signing so almost as much good as bad. I know there is no premise in trading teams or stadium situations, but so far it looks like the A's will remain competitive for a while and the Twins will continue to spin there wheels in mediocrity.Hard to prognosticate if that trend will continue. Obviously the A's need a better stadium situation and O'Co is a dump beyond being a good baseball experience.

 

 Would be nice if we could start seeing some tangible evidence that the Twins will be turning the corner in the coming years.

For the betterment of the game and competitive balance it would be nice if there was at least a portion of broadcast revenues of local radio and TV deals shared and guaranteed to be used towards payroll and not just pocketed that the game overall might have more competitive balance. I'm not saying each owner should give up all of there local income, but it would be nice for the overall competitive balance of the game that if a portion of that disparate revenue were shared. Problem is what would be the magic number, or a fair share of that revenue stream be, who would decide and would you ever get enough of the owners to agree to make it workable? It's doubtfull that New York or Boston or LA or San Francisco would agree to this type of arrangemnt.

I don't think brand new stadiums are the end all to be all the Selig makes them out to be.

Edited by jaimedude2, 20 August 2014 - 03:37 PM.


#8 Craig Arko

Craig Arko

    Kepler 452b or bust

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • LocationEarth
  • Twitter: crarko

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:13 PM

The Metrodome was like being stationed in a bunker on the Maginot Line. Oh, and don't open that door lest it deflate.

I could see it by walking a couple blocks from home. Ugly with a capital Yoog.

No, I don't miss it in the least. Target Field is Tahiti by comparison.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov.


#9 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 10,610 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:32 PM

To answer the question, no, I wouldn't trade for a team that is currently competitive.  There are no guarantees that teams remain competitive,

 

and a crappy stadium can last a long, long time.

 

 

  The White Sox got Cellular Field and it didn't really do that much for attendance.  

 

 

Part of the White Sox problem in this regard was the huge missed opportunity when they chose to replace venerable Comiskey Park,  First off, it was foolish to rebuild in a horrible, devoid of character, and at times downright scary, location on the Chicago South Side, and then, they built a pretty dumpy ballpark by modern standards, and completely failed to anticipate the trend in stadium construction clearly on the horizon in Baltimore.  Little known fact:  Camden Yards was originally designed as essentially a clone of Cellular, and just a few months behind the building schedule for Cellular, before an architectural consultant wisely scrapped the plan and sent the architect back to the drawing board..  

 

Ironic twist of fate, as Chicago is the home of legendary architectural achievements... and dozens of vibrant neighborhoods, plus an amazing lakefront, that would have made perfect settings for a new park.  Counting Soldier Field, Chicago once had three iconic ballparks, Soldier Field has now been converted into a bizarre mini-stadium seemingly built atop a crumbling Parthenon, dubbed the "Eyesore by the Lakeshore", it has the dubious distinction of being the only still-standing stadium to be delisted as a National Historic Landmark.  Comiskey was no architectural wonder, or as warm and fuzzy as Wrigley Field is, but it did exude history and had some fun features.  Unfortunately, as you so eloquently stated, a crappy (new) stadium can last a long, long time.

Edited by jokin, 20 August 2014 - 04:35 PM.

  • big dog and Sconnie like this

 

Joyous, fact-based and tireless Twins fan for 40+ years, who unfortunately has been characterized as-

 

"forcing Twins fans to endure more bitter, baseless, and tiresome cheap shots about the Twins FO."


#10 alskntwnsfn

alskntwnsfn

    Member

  • Members
  • 258 posts
  • LocationSavage

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:53 PM

Part of the White Sox problem in this regard was the huge missed opportunity when they chose to replace venerable Comiskey Park,  First off, it was foolish to rebuild in a horrible, devoid of character, and at times downright scary, location on the Chicago South Side, and then, they built a pretty dumpy ballpark by modern standards, and completely failed to anticipate the trend in stadium construction clearly on the horizon in Baltimore.  Little known fact:  Camden Yards was originally designed as essentially a clone of Cellular, and just a few months behind the building schedule for Cellular, before an architectural consultant wisely scrapped the plan and sent the architect back to the drawing board..  

 

Ironic twist of fate, as Chicago is the home of legendary architectural achievements... and dozens of vibrant neighborhoods, plus an amazing lakefront, that would have made perfect settings for a new park.  Counting Soldier Field, Chicago once had three iconic ballparks, Soldier Field has now been converted into a bizarre mini-stadium seemingly built atop a crumbling Parthenon, dubbed the "Eyesore by the Lakeshore", it has the dubious distinction of being the only still-standing stadium to be delisted as a National Historic Landmark.  Comiskey was no architectural wonder, or as warm and fuzzy as Wrigley Field is, but it did exude history and had some fun features.  Unfortunately, as you so eloquently stated, a crappy (new) stadium can last a long, long time.

 

That is hiliarious. I lived there when they were renovating it and felt so bad for Bears fans. It looks like a spaceship landed on the parthenon. 

 

I'm no White Sox fan, but I thought US Cellular was alright. Certainly behind the newer stadiums but so much better than the Metrodome. A 15-man fight broke out in the next section, but you know, south side. 

  • jokin and big dog like this

#11 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Total System Failure

  • Members
  • 6,491 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:57 PM

In a heartbeat.

 

As a matter of fact, I don't care if the Twins moved from Minnesota tomorrow, if that meant a better team...

Edited by Thrylos, 20 August 2014 - 04:59 PM.

-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#12 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 05:28 PM

No nay never.

 

Rather watch the Twinkies of the last few seasons in TF than Champions indoors. 

 

I grew up watching games at Met Stadium. Some teams were good, some were awful, but does it really matter if you are a fan of the game, and you can watch the best players in the world with a little skin in the game, and be outside in all the elements?

 

Given the Twins prospect pool, if reasonable, within the realm of normal probability health ensues, we good. Don't need A's or TB's teams.

Edited by Monkeypaws, 20 August 2014 - 05:28 PM.


#13 big dog

big dog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,248 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 05:30 PM

Part of the White Sox problem in this regard was the huge missed opportunity when they chose to replace venerable Comiskey Park,  First off, it was foolish to rebuild in a horrible, devoid of character, and at times downright scary, location on the Chicago South Side, and then, they built a pretty dumpy ballpark by modern standards, and completely failed to anticipate the trend in stadium construction clearly on the horizon in Baltimore.  Little known fact:  Camden Yards was originally designed as essentially a clone of Cellular, and just a few months behind the building schedule for Cellular, before an architectural consultant wisely scrapped the plan and sent the architect back to the drawing board..  

 

Ironic twist of fate, as Chicago is the home of legendary architectural achievements... and dozens of vibrant neighborhoods, plus an amazing lakefront, that would have made perfect settings for a new park.  Counting Soldier Field, Chicago once had three iconic ballparks, Soldier Field has now been converted into a bizarre mini-stadium seemingly built atop a crumbling Parthenon, dubbed the "Eyesore by the Lakeshore", it has the dubious distinction of being the only still-standing stadium to be delisted as a National Historic Landmark.  Comiskey was no architectural wonder, or as warm and fuzzy as Wrigley Field is, but it did exude history and had some fun features.  Unfortunately, as you so eloquently stated, a crappy (new) stadium can last a long, long time.

Soldier Field is really one of the most atrocious head-shaking things I've ever seen- every time I drive by it I wonder how on earth they decided to do that.  The Cell isn't nearly that bad, but the neighborhood is definitely a deterrent, to say the least.  The worst part of the Cell (other than Sox fans) to me is the upper deck, which is so steep that when you stand up you feel like you're just going to pitch right over the railing.  Fortunately, there are seldom enough fans to mean you have to actually sit up there.  I was up there once for a fireworks game, second row from the top, and it seemed like the fireworks were going off at eye level.


#14 Monkeypaws

Monkeypaws

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 05:38 PM

The Cell isn't nearly that bad, but the neighborhood is definitely a deterrent, to say the least.  The worst part of the Cell (other than Sox fans) to me is the upper deck, which is so steep that when you stand up you feel like you're just going to pitch right over the railing.  Fortunately, there are seldom enough fans to mean you have to actually sit up there.  I was up there once for a fireworks game, second row from the top, and it seemed like the fireworks were going off at eye level.

My brother used to live in Chicago, and told me about reports of bullet holes in the seats while it was being built, coming from across the freeway.

 

That said, I loved loved LOVED old Comiskey. Went to a few games there.

 

One time we waded our way through the 5,000 fans or so and watched Carlton Fisk hit a mammoth 3 run homer to win the game in the bottom of the 9th, right in the front row. If you never went there, the first row or 2 at Comiskey were actually below field level, so your head has at ground level. 

 

That is perhaps my most magnificent baseball memory ever, giant future HOFer hits game winning homer and it filled my entire field of vision.

  • jokin and Hosken Bombo Disco like this

#15 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Tatertots R good

  • Members
  • 2,072 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 20 August 2014 - 06:23 PM

I'm no White Sox fan, but I thought US Cellular was alright. Certainly behind the newer stadiums but so much better than the Metrodome. A 15-man fight broke out in the next section, but you know, south side.

this was the argument for a new Vikings stadium, and target field from the governmental justification stand point. A big new stadium was supposed to make the neighborhood better.

When they put target center in the warehouse district, the bars were already on the north east side, and there was warehouses and the garbage incinerator on the west side. When they built TF they tore down the warehouses to make room for TF, but the garbage incinerator is still there. At least TF and TC were built adjacent to existing good neighborhoods.

When they built the Metrodome in a dumpy area north of down town surrounded by a newspaper company and flour mill, the neighborhood hadn't grown around it, with the exception of the Guthrie (which installed bars and restaurants inside so the patrons wouldn't get mugged) and when they tore it down' it was the same neighborhood. The same with US Cellular.

We all know the promises made by Twins ownership that a new stadium would help the team compete. We as rube fans assumed that compete meant on the field, just like the government assumed that neighborhood improvement meant improvements outside of the stadium.

Of course both tenants are false. A stadium makes for a more pleasant place to go, and more revenue for the owner. Pay the ticket price and go, or don't. Pay for the stadium in taxes, or move, or risk tax evasion charges. Accept a stadium for what it is, a venue for fans, and a source of income for owners.

Edited by Sconnie, 20 August 2014 - 06:24 PM.


#16 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 20 August 2014 - 07:40 PM

The past four years, for sure. But the foolishness of this trade would start to come to a head as soon as 2016 if not next year.

Papers...business papers.

#17 Paul Pleiss

Paul Pleiss

    Nick Punto's Ghost

  • Members
  • 1,068 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 11:48 PM

I'd trade Target Field for Petco Park, Camden Yards, AT&T or PNC Park. That's about it.

 

I'm also quite partial to Turner Field, but I wouldn't trade it for TF unless it also came with Atlanta's first round draft pick for the next decade.

__________________
@BaseballPirate: Mike Pelfrey is a Sasquatch. Drew Butera is the #BoatAnchor. Nick Punto is my spirit animal.

nick%2Bpunto%2Bshirtless.jpg


#18 alskntwnsfn

alskntwnsfn

    Member

  • Members
  • 258 posts
  • LocationSavage

Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:30 AM

That is hiliarious. I lived there when they were renovating it and felt so bad for Bears fans. It looks like a spaceship landed on the parthenon. 

 

I'm no White Sox fan, but I thought US Cellular was alright. Certainly behind the newer stadiums but so much better than the Metrodome. A 15-man fight broke out in the next section, but you know, south side. 

 

Ditto on the upper deck Big Dog, that's where the fight took place. Which was pretty impressive because I was a little nervous about just edging past people to get to my seat, let alone try and fight somebody up there. It was like a 9 foot fall into the row below you. I'm fine with heights, but it definitely gives you some vertigo. Didn't see any bullet holes, but it wouldn't have surprised me. Thank god it was a day game... the neighborhood still seemed sketchy at 4:00 on a Tuesday. 


#19 Kirby_waved_at_me

Kirby_waved_at_me

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,140 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:43 AM

The Cell is my least favorite of the ballparks I've visited - that includes the Metrodome.

 

I would say that I enjoyed the one playoff game I attended at Target Field more than the last one I attended at the Dome - there was a different feeling outdoors.

 

The Dome was always louder, of course...


#20 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,703 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 10:27 AM

I would say that I enjoyed the one playoff game I attended at Target Field more than the last one I attended at the Dome - there was a different feeling outdoors.

Even as a Dome backer, I have to agree with this too.

 

I think part of the reason (from my perspective, at least) is that day games generally sucked at the Dome.  Didn't mind the roof at all, but seeing it bright with sunlight was always a bit depressing.  And in the 2000s, the Twins seemed to have a lot of day game playoff assignments.  The 2009 tiebreaker was a weird start time (5 PM?) and the atmosphere was a lot better then.  Helped that it wasn't really the playoffs so we actually felt like we could win it too. :)

 

Otherwise, I really grew to love the Dome for evening games.  Cheap tickets, plentiful seats, large general admission sections, and from 2001 onward, very interesting/entertaining teams on the field.  As a young single dude, I went to a few games just for the air conditioning.