TheLeviathan

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. I'm hopign the Wolves and Wild (who are both due soon) either stay out of Minneapolis (Wild) or move out (Wolves). Still, given how they built, I think Target Fields' location on 394 was brilliant. It really is much easier than most stadiums.

So help me out, which part did you disagree with? I'm not sure on what premise you were taking issue with. I understand your point about Minneapolis being stretched too thin/overstuffed, I wouldn't disagree with that.

Dave St. Peter has earned his firing for 20 years. He's also the person I expect to see die in his role before he's ever removed.

Let's hope this year they get the budget number in November and not February. Then let's hope they do a better job allocating the restricted dollars than Margot/DeScalfini/etc.

While we're at it, Bailey Ober: We’re the ones performing out there and didn’t get the job done,” Ober said. “He’s putting out the lineups and we’re trying to do it. I feel like most of the blame should be on the players. But everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. If the players hear that, I don’t think anyone’s agreeing with that. It’s like, seriously, can’t you see what’s going on? He’s not the one at fault for this mishap that happened. We didn’t get it done.”

As many have said, the focus should be on ownership. They want to be the Rays by their own admission. We need more heroes like this one: The Pohalds banned him for a year and tried to have him arrested.

I'm happy for Buck that he got to have 100 games. He's such a good dude, he deserves better than constantly being hurt. I would expect this is probably the high water mark for this contract and, if so, the Twins probably will get their money's worth out of it.

Look, I'm going to be as blunt but as fair as I can be here: The prices you're talking about are not reserved for the Twins. Expensive beer and expensive parking is what you get in 100% of pro sports experiences. Traffic and parkings snarls too. The Twins building their stadium on the edge of 394 has easily made it a top 10% stadium I've been to for ease of entrance. (I don't live in Minnesota but when I return I travel from outside the metro, I"ve also gone to half the major league ball parks in addition to non-baseball arenas in many places too) It's easier to get to than the Dome was and way easier than the vast majority of stadiums. These complaints simply aren't valid in the larger context. You may feel them to be true, but they're true everywhere and do not explain the original article's point. "Chicago. Riots. Swore off Minneapolis" I grew up in rural Minnesota. Now that I've lived in urban areas and many other states I can tell you this: I know what that's code for. You don't have to be stuck in that kind of backwards thinking and it's ok to grow as a person past it. Minneapolis - and all it's fine citizens - are perfectly wonderful to enjoy a game with.

The Twins need to start asking people like you how they have won and retained their loyalty and how to replicate that. Great post!

You are aware that you have yet to share a single link, study, or data set in support of your opinion....right?

Why does capacity percentage matter and why are you not doing that math (or any?) In service of your claim? Your second paragraph is a strawman. No one claimed winning wasn't correlated. I suggest you go back to my post you "wholeheartedly" denied: i said winning isnt the only thing. Other factors clearly matter. As demonstrated by the significant attendance advantages in Colorado (where they have won nothing and made a litany of bad decisions and frequently field stripped down garbage teams) and Milwaukee (who has low payrolls, sells off established vets just like we complain about, and have won at a similar clip) To avoid another strawman, allow me to be clear: winning matters, but so do other factors. Milwaukee and Colorado are doing something (probably many things) that are allowing them to draw hundreds of thousnds more fans than we are despite worse or roughly equal amounts of winning. Which, by definition, means your sole focus on winning is not supported by evidence. Certainly not always and in all markets.

No one said it was static, just consistently higher than this: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/attend.shtml By sizable margins too. That's the point, as it was in the article with the Rockies who outdraw the Twins by a ton and have only been good 4 times this century.

The article references Colorado, which also directly contradicts your assumption. Here is Milwaukee from another, similar thread: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIL/attend.shtml

Evidence has been posted that in two comparable markets: St. Louis and Milwaukee, this simply isnt true. They draw well regardless. There may be a myriad of reasons, but winning isnt the exclusive reason. (especially in Milwaukee's case)

Winning solves when winning happens, but all teams go through non-winning stretches. These other franchises with more consistent attendance are doing things beyond game results to encourage and retain fan investment. Winning certainly helps, but it doesn't explain everything.

I think you read a different thread. I think another poster made my point nicely for me.

You get the trust and devotion you earn. There is more that goes into that than merely won or lost games.

My bullpen point speaks to yours: too many guys who are Brock Stewart wild-card types.

That was my sense of things. They were put in a holding pattern and then had to scramble when Defcon-1 was issued on payroll. The malfeasance on the broadcasting deal had catastrophic consequences for this year.

Sure: "There was no true external factor outside of the team's control" We were talking about Rocco so I assume you meant "Rocco's control". So, if you admit you said it and stand by it, why are you taking issue with me holding you to it? Identifying an external factor is not excusing it or complaining about it. It's pointing out a fact that contradicts your claim. There are absolutely factors that are outside the control of the manager. To claim otherwise is plainly false.

That was not the point. You claimed everything was in his control. Have you changed your stance on that? You ignored my question, that's fine. I won't respond to the rest because it appears we stepped out of being reasonable again.

I don't act like he doesn't have control and didn't suggest that he couldn't do anything. That's an unfair strawman. Let's go back to reasonable: Rocco does have influence on morale, but I would hope you agree he's not the sole influence on it. There are external factors that can also heavily weigh on morale. Do you disagree with any of my list? Are those not valid external factors Rocco cannot control? That doesn't mean there aren't things he could've done differently, but he there ARE things he can't control. I do think mixing up the lineup should've been done.....but he did that. Maybe not well, but he did it. Much to the chagrin of many posters here. (There were arguments about who hit in the top of the lineup (Margot) and where Farmer was hitting for example) One common anti-Rocco rant is the constantly fluctuating lineup! So what is it I'm supposed to be mad at? Too much change? Not enough? You see the problem with that right? You truly think taking your third best bullpen option (in a pen that is only three deep) and starting him is going to be a viable winning strategy? I mean, yeah, it's bold, but I also don't want a manager whose approach is wreckless, "throw stuff at the wall for what sticks" either. Isn't one of the complaints about Rocco that he doesn't give players enough consistency in their day to day? And therein lies the problem. The criticisms are often completely contradictory day to day. Anyone who suggests that there might be context gets the strawman treatment from above. That's not being reasonable. Let me ask more pointedly - how much praise did you have for him when they were the second best team in the AL in July?

I disagree. Injuries. Payroll decisions. Trade decisions. Who is rostered. These are all external factors. I hear people criticize Rocco (just this week!) for mixing the lineup TOO much. Who does he pitch instead of SWR? I don't think Rocco was somehow a different human in June and July when the Twins were womping people as he is now. What changed is the options he had to deploy and their performance IMO. Roller coaster seasons are hard to pin on one person unless you were jumping for joy at his brilliance in July but bemoaning his incompetence now. That seems....odd. No?

I understand the sentiment towards that. I don't know if you can relate, but I've worked in environments with wonderful leadership that still suffer from all kinds of external variables they can't control that beat morale down. Even a great leader can only weather so much storm.is it not possible that these guys still want to fight for Rocco but simply can't get out of their own way? And if that is possible, how would you or I from our couch, ever be able to tell the difference?

I won't take issue with your opinion to fire him and your second paragraph is a valid argument. I think many coaches are fired as scapegoats. It might even be wise/effective in many cases, including this one. But neither you or I know if he lost the clubhouse. That is, IMO, never a fair argument. We simply are too much in the dark. It may prove to be true, (like Zimmer for example) but it is purely speculative given what we know.