Reusse: Always are Angry Twins Followers

[ThePuck]

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]

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.

[bird]

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]

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

[bird]

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]

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]

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 Sixel]

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]

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]

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.

[bird]

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.

[bird]

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]

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.

[bird]

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]

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.

[bird]

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]

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]

 

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]

 

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.

[bird]

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 Sixel]

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]

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.

[bird]

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]

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.

[bird]

Puck, you and I are done. You made your points. Boy, was I ever off base.

[ThePuck]

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]

Looks like I've been dismissed...oh well.

[snepp]

Looks like I've been dismissed...oh well.

 

Dismissed perhaps, but not ignored!

[nicksaviking]

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!

[bird]

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?