DutchFarmer

My link didn't have any analysis attached so I don't know what you're alluding to. Furthermore, I don't need to conduct any analysis just because you said so. Do I need to also respond to Daily Beast articles? HuffPo too? How about People's World? I think it's appropriate to discuss politics on this site if politics directly impacts baseball, so I'm glad this thread is here; however, if you're going to assert a point be prepared to discuss the original source. Everything else is intentional distraction.

Moving the goalposts again... To be clear, you (and assume others too) don't find the actual original text of the bill to be a substantial enough source. The bill itself is not a good enough source...unreal. Instead, you'd prefer to use a left-wing paraphrase of the bill? The argument thus far is: Leftwing: "You're a racist because you support this bill requiring election monitors to live in the county of the election!" Rightwing: "The bill doesn't mention race. Did you read the bill? Here it is. Perhaps we should talk about specifics in the bill before asserting ill intent?" Leftwing: "I don't need to read the bill, other people who agree with me politically already provided talking points so you'll have to refute those talking points before I take you seriously." Yeah, that's a strawman, I get it, but that's honestly what it feels and looks like.

Again, you specifically asked for sources. Now you're moving the goalposts to a nebulous "listening to those who are impacted" standard. Here's the actual text of the bill. If you choose to read it you'll notice that it's filled with rather mundane rule changes to a pre-existing law. Things such as limiting the ability for an election superintendent to receive donations from partisan groups, and altering the process of an election board, and how a poll watcher must reside in the county either of the precinct or a county bordering. The narrative of this bill being "racist" is exactly that, a narrative, and the narrative itself is ironically racist in that it makes the argument of, "This group of people - based solely off of the pigmentation of their skin - can't vote if you don't allow free water." (and other equally specious arguments)

You asked for a source. Also, as the moderator is just seems prudent to not take a side.

I used to be a mega-fan, commonly listened to nearly every game on the radio and - as is likely the case with most in the Twins Daily community - could name most minor leaguers and for sure every member of the active roster, including most of their stats. Despite that, last season I only watched/listened to parts of about 3 games. I just generally lost interest due to the shutdown teaching me I didn't really need sports, plus the Twins/baseball getting political, plus the rule changes. I still check in from time to time (hence my comment here) but I've gone from checking Twins Daily everyday (no pun intended) to once every few weeks. Get the game back to what it previously was and I might come back...

One positive byproduct of Maeda being a Twin is that hopefully it helps crack the door open for new Japanese talent to come here. I have no idea to what extent having a fellow countryman on a team would matter, but I would imagine it's a positive. There appear to be a healthy number of higher-end Japanese players coming to the states in the next year or two. https://www.fantasypros.com/2020/02/2020-mlb-top-international-prospects/

Is it too much to ask for the FO to be perfectly prescient of which prospects will turn into stars and then trade the other prospects for current stars?

This was an extremely educational write-up. Well done.

Dome dog please

Would like both of these a heck of a lot better if there were reasonably priced team options for 2021 attached. I suppose I'm happy in the sense that there appears to be reason for hope that these turn out to be bargains (even if the odds don't seem really high).

Best post in this thread.

Completely agree.... though I must admit I'm very much looking forward to seeing the shiny new participation trophy sitting next to the 87 and 91 world championship trophies during my next visit to Target Field.

One time - 2011 - have they spent in these ranges - and to their credit this one year they spent beyond 52%. Other than that, my quick glance at the numbers tells me they have been under 50% every other year. It's time, we have young, controllable, inexpensive talent to make a run, now let's supplement with a bonafide star. It'd be fantastic to see them go get the level of player we simply don't have anywhere in our org - a la Strasburg or Rendon. https://www.statista.com/statistics/196669/revenue-of-the-minnesota-twins-since-2006/ https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/index.php?team=MIN&cyear=2019

I'm not disagreeing about their relative spending vs. other teams, it's a related but largely inconsequential point. Their spending has not been in the range that was pitched as one of the primary purposes for needing a publicly-funded stadium (50-52%). Considering that, I think it fully justified that some folks might want to see them pony-up from time to time.

To be fair, your response doesn't really address my points, which are in relation to the implications given during the publicly funded stadium debate, in that the stadium would allow the team to increase spending with a loose target of 50-52%. There have been many scenarios over the past roughly 10 years where they could have spent more (according to the % of revenue model noted above) but didn't whatever reason. With all that being said, I've never been one who is really passionate on either side of this "Twins don't spend enough/Twins can't spend more" argument so I feel weird getting into it; but when trying to be objective about the topic it's just difficult to buy into the notion that the Twins are spending what they could. I don't know, spending more doesn't necessarily always equate to more wins (Chris Davis), but sometimes it does (Max Scherzer).