Finally, an impetus to movement ...

by BD57 on Feb 8, 2006 3:30 PM EST

Now that the Court has ruled the Twins aren't obligated to the Dome past 2006, maybe we'll get some movement on the stadium front.

Judges can do the strangest things ....

Not long ago, a Judge saved the Twins, snatching contraction away from MLB by ruling the Twins were obligated to the Dome for their upcoming season, contraction or no contraction. With the latest ruling, holding the Twins aren't obligated to the Dome past 2006, the courts may have saved the Twins again.

Absent some threat of the team disappearing - and perhaps even with it - it's clear a stadium for the Twins is going nowhere unless Pohlad wants to pay for 100% of it himself. The Twins - correctly, in my view - aren't interested in a referendum: the politicians are elected to lead, they have the authority to act and they're simply choosing not to; referendums are tailor-made for "anti-rich-guy" demagoguery; and costs go up as time passes.

Unfortunately, while the prior ruling saved the Twins for the time being, it also took the pressure off the political types ... all those people who were "shocked, shocked" that the Twins might be taken away from Minnesota (you know, the same ones who wouldn't lift a finger to keep the team around before the word "contraction" was uttered). And with the pressure relieved, the politicians went back to being, well, politicians .... moisten the finger, stick it in the air and attempt to run ahead of the masses & convince them they're 'leading.'

Well, now the pressure is back.

The Twins are obligated for 2006, and that's it. If Minnesota wants to keep its baseball team, then something is going to have to be done to keep the Twins in Minnesota - and this time, that means reaching an agreement the Twins can accept.

If only the track record was prettier.

The Lakers were once the "Minneapolis Lakers" (who ever heard of Lakes in Los Angeles?), but they left town when it became clear there wasn't an acceptable venue for the team's home games.

Perhaps all those championships won in L.A. wouldn't have occurred in Minneapolis - but one can dream.

The "Stars" were once the "North Stars." They, too, left Minnesota - hockey mad Minnesota - for Dallas - football crazy Dallas, Texas - because (ahem) they figured that market would treat them better.

They won a Stanley Cup in Dallas & are pretty consistently good these days - wonder how the Twin Cities would've treated them?

Now, of course, the Twins & Vikings are on the cusp. If they leave - with the track record in the Twin Cities, "when" seems more likely - there will be a period of time when neither Major League Baseball nor NFL football is played in Minnesota.

Until they are again - in nice, shiny new venues built 100% by the taxpayers.

Somehow, keeping what we have seems like a better idea.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Wild

You'd think the politicians would have learned after the North Stars left and were replaced by something called the "Wild." Now the Twin Cities have two arenas competing against each other, which is good in a way, except that they are both taxpayer funded and one, the Target Center, appears to be losing. Its just a matter of time before the Target Center will need to be refurbished.

by wcooley on Feb 8, 2006 3:37 PM EST reply actions

Minnesota

Minnesota is a cheep state that doesn't get it. Even if we build a stadium, we'll cut so many corners to save a few cents that it wont be any good in 20 years. That is the exact problem with the dome.

Plus, it is an election year and that topic is seemingly being avoided by candidates.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 8, 2006 5:18 PM EST reply actions

Election Year

I'm tired of politicians using "it's an election year" as an excuse. These men and women are running on two-year cycles, and if it's not an election year it's a budget year...and they don't want to deal with it then, either.

I get the sense that the people we elect aren't as much unable as much as they are unwilling to take responsibility for whichever stance they choose on this topic. Insead, they choose nothing, and the issue only gets bigger. They don't say no, they don't say yes.

If I had the personal and financial assets to fund a stadium myself, I would do it. Not only because I love baseball and I love the Twins, but because I believe Minneapolis/St. Paul is a better area because of them. Of course, I don't have these assets, and very few constituents do...which is one of the many reasons we elect officials. "The public" cannot make decisions. "The public" is slow moving, is obstinate due to varying opinions, and is NOT accountable. If they're afraid to tell us no and afraid to tell us yes, then it's time for them to not be elected.

Don't be afraid to make a decision.

by Jesse on Feb 10, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

Voters

Many, if not most, of the problems in American politics are caused not by politicians, but by the voters. Why will politicians refuse to touch issues in election years? Because it will screw them over because the voters are dumb and shortsided. Politicians are often shorthanded becaue of the publics inability to see down the road. The people want to pay less and get more now, regardless of how good it is for the country and regardless of how feasable it is and regarless how it screws the future.

Another problem with Minnesotans is their unusual penchant to turn their noses up to sports and dismiss them as lower forms of entertainmet. They don't deserve so much funding we say. But we would gladly pay for countless other forms of entertainment and culture. Theatres, parks, art shows, ampetheatres. Sports are, in fact, an equally important piece of our culture. This is evidenced by how important they are to so many people. MInd you, this statement is coming from someone who is poor at sports and spends and enormous amount of time working in the theatre.

Meanwhile, we also prop up fledging Northwest instead of forcing it to reform its un-workable worker's contracts (of blue collar laborers, white collar workers and execs alike) of the boom 90's.

Frankly it all doesn t add up. I'm ready to chalk a stadium up next to saving social security and fixing our deficits and debts in the "things that won't get done until the s**t has hit the fan because the American public is to dumb to recognize its importance and be willing to *gasp sacrifice to fix problems.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 11, 2006 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

Minnesota

The public will have nothing to do with the construction of this stadium, despite paying 75% of the cost. Because the team is assuming cost overruns, they want to completely control the design and construction.

Frankly, I wish it wasn't so one-sided. I don't want to build another Metrodome, but I'm guessing the Twins/HOK plan includes a lot of frivolties and leaves the stadium with little convertibility to be used for other events.

by spycake on Feb 13, 2006 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

Well

Baseball fields aren't really good for any other kind of event anyway as far as I can tell.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 13, 2006 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

Pac Bell Park..errr SBC Park...errr AT&T Park

Has hosted a Green Day concert, a Rolling Stones concert, an annual college bowl game, soccer matches to name a few.

Baseball stadiums can hold just about any event in my mind.

by caluofmn on Feb 13, 2006 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

AT&T Park

by the way is one hell of a great MLB baseball park.

by caluofmn on Feb 13, 2006 7:35 PM EST up reply actions

The Bowl Game

the Bowl game concerns me? Is it built like a baseball stadium? That is, are the seats aligned right?

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 14, 2006 11:14 PM EST up reply actions

It is a baseball stadium first

Twins fans would love the fact that football fans get crappy seats.

It is a beautiful park and trust me I'm NO Giants fan.

by caluofmn on Feb 15, 2006 7:12 PM EST up reply actions

That's good

Well, fantastic then.

So it fits football, but liek you just said not well. (crappy seats and all)

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 15, 2006 9:13 PM EST up reply actions

Throw history aside...

and Pac Bell (err AT&T) is bar none the best park in baseball, or any sport, by a WIDE margin. There is nothing better than watching a game and simultaneously watching boats in and out of the Pacific Ocean. Unbelievable!

by djskilbr on Feb 28, 2006 3:33 AM EST up reply actions

Hope for move, not contraction

I could swallow a move of the Twins. Thanks to technology - I watch the Twins on my DISH, listen to them on XM, plus some internet items. Does not really matter if they are the Minnesota Twins, or the Carolina Twins, or the Vegas Twins.

Also, since I no longer live in Minnesota, but do live in Midwest, I see all my games in Chicago, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. Although I still have some affection for the Dome, watching baseball in a baseball stadium is so incredible.

I just hope and pray that Mr. Pohldad sells the team before agreeing to contraction.

Either way, I am convinced that Minnesota baseball will soon an item of the past.

by RJTWIN on Feb 8, 2006 11:07 PM EST reply actions

I gotta put my money where my mouth is

I think that this year I will do my share for the Twins.
I don't live in MN anymore but this is what I'm planning. The deal with Minneapolis said that .3 cents of every 20.00 would go to building a new stadium. I'm planning on sending the Twins .3 cents of every 20.00 spent on baseball. Everytime I go see the Giants, or A's. Everytime I buy some Twins item off MLB.com. .3 cents of my monthly MLB.TV charge and even .3 cents of annual trip to MN to see my beloved Twins.

It's so easy to talk about wanting the Twins to stay and support a new stadium but how many of us are doing anything about it?

I know it's a small gesture that will probably mean nothing. I bet the Twins won't even notice but what the hey. If they move or are contracted I will know I tried to help keep this team that means so much to me.

I'll still be a baseball fan but I will not root for a team unless it's the Minnesota Twins.

by caluofmn on Feb 10, 2006 1:26 PM EST reply actions

Yes

I would gladly pay that three cents as well, and they would take it off whether I wanted to or not.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 11, 2006 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

Minneapolis

I fear that the Twins stadium will not be approved unless a few Minneapolis politicians plus state representatives and state senators from Minneapolis back the stadium deal. Right now they don't support the plan.

If you live in Minneapolis you need to put pressure on these people or most likely the Twins will be contracted in 2007.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 12, 2006 11:44 PM EST reply actions

Our Legislature

Ah, yes, another blockade to the stadium. Minnesota's state legislature is abhorrantly unfunctional. They strggle to even pass a budget, much less anything else major.

I think Jesse Ventura, as much as it hurts me to say it, was right when he said we should have unicameral legislature. There really isn't any need to have two in a state and in this state it makes it even more difficult to get anything through the gridlock.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 12, 2006 11:48 PM EST reply actions