Ballpark Talk Part 1: An Introduction to All Sides

by spycake on Feb 13, 2006 4:16 PM EST Comment 55 comments

Rather than a bully pulpit for extreme pro- or anti-stadium opinions (you can read the Star Tribune opinion page for those!), I hope this will be a series for reasoned discussion of the new Twins ballpark.

Part 1: An Introduction to All Sides

The public can essentially be divided into 3 groups on the ballpark issue. The first group consists of the stadium boosters, those that believe the Twins are a civic institution and need to be preserved. They don't really care about the specifics of the plan, except perhaps that it roughly conforms to those approved in other cities. The second group is the anti-stadium crowd, who oppose any and all public funding for a pro sports stadium. Like the first group, they too aren't too concerned with the particulars of the plan -- they will refuse it if involves one penny of public funds. Virtually all of the editorials you read and opinions offered on talk radio tend to be from these first two groups, despite the fact I believe they are both minority positions.

The third segment, who I believe represent the majority of the population, have an ambivalence about the stadium issue (similar to their general ambivalence about most political issues). They recognize the Twins have value to the community, but they aren't sure how to quantify it in terms of a public stadium contribution. Despite their low public profile, they still represent a majority of voters, and whether or not it goes to referendum, they need to be sold on the stadium plan in order to exert significant pressure on legislators and the governor to act (especially in an election year!).

The current stadium plan, despite being in-line with other stadium plans around the country, has yet to sway the majority of the Minnesota populace, and at best maintains a tenuous appeal with most of our state's elected officials.

What's wrong with the plan?

The current Hennepin County plan, as it is viewed by the general populace, focuses on two main points: 1) a return of outdoor major league baseball to Minnesota, and 2) keeping the Twins from moving or being contracted. Although these points may stir emotion among the extreme minority positions, they do nothing to settle the ambivalence of the others. Frankly, most people don't care where the Twins play in Minnesota -- about 2 million fans have come out to the Metrodome each of the past five seasons, and it has even topped 3 million in the past with extended playoff success and a more favorable view of MLB in general (pre-strike). And keeping the Twins in Minnesota, although important to some, ultimately seems like a matter of baseball business and financial matters. Like earlier appeals that the Twins were losing money and couldn't afford the best players, any business-related appeal from a sports team tends to alienate the average undecided citizen rather than align them with the ballpark cause. Overall, there seems to very little on the surface of the current Hennepin County plan to sell it to the undecided constituent or representative.

In part 2, I plan to propose a relatively minor modification that would make the plan much more palatable to the public and to politicians in an election year. Stay tuned!

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Has anyone...

...seen this proposal?

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/210130.html

I found it unique and creative and, though quite unlikely, surprisingly compelling!

by adam on Feb 13, 2006 5:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Segment three ....

While "most" people don't care where the Twins play, the group that does is larger than that group of people who attend games.

There are lots of die-hard Twins fans out there who rarely, if ever, attend games.

My Minnesota grandparents, for example, were that sort of Twins fan - during the summer, they listened to games on the radio & watched them on TV whenever they were on, even though they lived hours away in Lakefield, Minnesota. While they were outside the realm of taxpayers who would pay the 3 cents per $20.00 tax per the Hennepin County proposal, they were Minnesota Taxpayers who would've thought they benefitted from state participation in a new Twins stadium.

For that sort of Twins fan, it will matter where they play - they became Twins fans because of the connection to their home state, not because they thought the uniforms were pretty. If they leave, that bond will be broken.

by BD57 on Feb 13, 2006 5:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I agree with you -- it does matter whether they play in Minnesota or in Las Vegas. I meant that many people in Minnesota, both fans and non-fans, don't really care whether they play indoors at the Dome or outdoors at a new stadium.

I didn't mean to insinuate that fans or Minnesotans in general wouldn't be fazed by a franchise relocation! DirecTV or MLB.tv can only do so much!

by spycake on Feb 13, 2006 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They are the Minnesota Twins

And I am a fan of this team. If they moved to Portland or Las Vegas they would stop being the Minnesota Twins and I would probably stop being a fan. This is even if they brought all the same players to the new city. It just isn't the same team.

One reason I am a fan of this team is because they are from Minnesota. I don't live in the Cities anymore and I do have 2 baseball teams locally I could root for but I take pride in rooting for the team in Minnesota.

I hope somehow the Twins never leave.

by caluofmn on Feb 13, 2006 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Guarantee

If Minnesotans put up $350+ million for a stadium, they deserve to keep the Twins as long as there is such thing as Major League Baseball. However, all they apparently get is a 30-year supposedly "iron clad" lease with a private business. Could we raise the money in a more responsible way? Roughly 25% total cost public subsidies for the Guthrie Theatre and Walker Art Center are accompanied by incredible private donations (approaching $100 million in each case!), which appears to do a lot more to ensure the institutions remain local. Is there a way to go beyond the 30 year lease, if not in contractual terms, then in practical terms? And is this possible within the existing framework of the current proposal (i.e. the Pohlad contribution is already maxed)?

I plan to address this in more detail in another entry. Thanks for the comment!

by spycake on Feb 13, 2006 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When you lose your team...

As one who lost my favorite team, believe me, you will not remain a Twins (or whatever they would be called) fan for long. When the Braves moved to Atlanta...I recall a lot of friends/fans following them closely that first year. Within a few years, talk of the Braves amongst my friends was mostly met with comtempt.

by roger on Feb 14, 2006 7:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Spycake, Drop you Plan - Organize this Group!

With all due respect spycake, I submit that you are wasting our time and yours by offering a new alternative stadium plan. If, as you suggest, there are three groups on the ballpark issue, then it really does not matter what the "plan" turns out to be.

For what it is worth the current Hennepin County plan is the plan. Unless you are a Hennepin County Commission or a member of the legislature I doubt if anyone is seriously going to take your advice at this late date.

The stadium issue will swing on political support. In order to get a positive vote our elected officials need to know that they have political support for their decision. They will not stick their necks out for the Twins without political cover.

Mike Opat of Hennepin County is providing the political cover for the legislature. The problem is that the Minneapolis Mayor, City Council and Minneapolis legislators appear to be dead set against having a stadium in downtown Minneapolis. Why they would not support the construction of a $400 to $500 million construction project in Minneapolis is beyond my understanding.

I believe if just a few Minneapolis "public servants" were to get on board with the stadium it would be much easier to get the legislature and Governor on board.

Respectfully, I suggest that forget proposing your plan and work on getting us organized on affecting the outcome of the debate with special focus on Minneapolis politicians.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 14, 2006 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rybak

Didn't he come out in favor of the stadium, after they had to nearly drag a decision out of him?

by roger on Feb 14, 2006 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rybak

Last year the good Mayor of Minneapolis said he favored the Hennepin County plan. However, in recent memory, he has not talked about the issue nor has he done anything to move the plan forward.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 14, 2006 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a "new" plan

If you read the last line, you would see that I'm only proposing a "minor modification" to the existing Hennepin County plan. Unfortunately in its current form this plan has not garnered much "political support" for almost a year, and I doubt it will in an election year. It needs to be re-energized somehow!

Hopefully I'll have my part 2 up tomorrow.

by spycake on Feb 14, 2006 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of points

Economic Impact
Every report by an independant third party I've ever found indicates that economic impact of a new stadium is overall neutral to what the area would have had otherwise. Is there any literature out there that would point to a different conclusion?

As for this 3 groups approach... well I've been called 4 times to find out if I support a twins stadium. Each time I ask the question "Does it have some sort of roof?" each time the answer is "no" and so each time MY answer is "no."

Personally I would support a stadium with public financing IF the twins payed more thatn 50% of it. That's fair to me. Every actual proposal I've seen has the state footing most of the bill.

by MNPundit on Feb 14, 2006 2:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Logic

I believe those economic impact studies are just wrong. They assume that there's a fixed set of resources and, that set will only be spent on other venues if not on the Twins. The reality is people pay for what they like and save their money if there's nothing they like. So $2 million tickets would not be sold and some of that money would not be spent. To say nothing of the entertainment dollars that cannot be spent if people stay home. To say nothing of construction companies, the Twins staff, concession companies, parking companies, and of course the players. Allthose revenues would be lost if we lost the Twins and people would not necessarily choose to spend tham on other things.

Without those tax revenues, state programs such as education and helath care will suffer.

Joe Mauer for MVP.

by cmathewson on Feb 14, 2006 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Economic studies

are a lot like statistics. One can choose a set of numbers and assumptions to support any position the organization paying for the study wants. Tell me what you want, I will find or create a "legitimate study" to support your position.

by roger on Feb 14, 2006 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So...

...what you really mean is that you can do an illegitimate study to support any position you want.

by ubelmann on Feb 14, 2006 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No,

everything about the study can be legitimate. Just pick assumptions that will give you the results you want...which is what I suspect many of the studies related to the economic impact were.

by roger on Feb 14, 2006 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Settle down, everyone

I don't want this to become another "pro-stadium" / "anti-stadium" hate-fest!

I think we can all agree that a stadium and team could provide some economic benefit, but how much is it worth for a public contribution? And does it make sense for the public to actually OWN this single-purpose facility and be responsible for capital improvements?

In any case, expediency also has a value, hence why I'm accepting the Hennepin County plan as a starting point. Hopefully I'll have my part 2 ready tomorrow...

by spycake on Feb 14, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly...

"Just pick assumptions that will give you the results you want..."

That makes the study illegitimate. There's no field of science or social science that I know of where it is acceptable to change the inputs of the study just to get the output that you want.

That's certainly a legitimate practice in the world of propaganda, but if you're doing anything worthwhile, to try to learn something, picking the assumptions you want to give you the results you want is practically the definition of illegitimate.

Even if your point is that everything after you pick the assumptions is done properly, that's totally undermined if you're changing your assumptions to get the conclusion you want.

by ubelmann on Feb 14, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In the world of propaganda

is what this all about, cause it is all about politics. And using various assumptions doesn't make a study illegitimate...as the assumptions are always buried in the fine print somewhere. It is no different that having two "experts" testify in a trial with opposite opinions. They both will have data to support their positions which are different and support each side. Are these experts illegitimate...no, well at least they usually aren't. Furthermore, these studies aren't done to try to learn something. They are done to support the position of the side in the battle...either for the stadium or against it.

by roger on Feb 14, 2006 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Devil's Advocate

Granted I support public support of an adequete stadium (lets start calling for the state to build an adequete stadium or a first baseball stadium since the metrodome isn't adequete or a baseball stadium) for its economical, cultural, and societal (as well as prestige-ial)impact. However, the concept that if there isn't baseball some of that money will be saved is tenuous in todays america. No one saves. Anything. Seriously, the private sector of America spends $1.06 for ever $1.00 it earns. SO yeah. No saving going on here.

Which, on a non-baseball related note, is a HUGE problem. A big enough problem that Allan Greenspan, the first guy in America who will tell people to buy buy buy suggested we save a little more.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 14, 2006 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

effect of new Fed chair?

Your evoking the name of St.
Alan (Greenspan) got me thinking about any effect the new chair of the fed could have on the overall economy (with regards to interest rates, platforms that encourage spending,saving, etc.). I know this might seem to be off of the main point, but one mistake by incoming chair Bernanke might have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, let alone the effects on interest rate of any money borrowed by the public to finance the stadium. It would seem that this is the worst possible time to commit money to a new stadium (which I personally support). It would be nice to know the temperament of Mr. Bernanke before making any commitment one way or another.

Whaddya think guys, am I worried about nothing?

THIS will be Cuddyer's year (take 3)

by dafoshe on Feb 15, 2006 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think so

I think you are worried about nothing for two reasons

That prediction is self proving. If everyone thinks the economy will go down because of the new chairman so they pull back their investments, then the economy goes down because of that.
This guy is unbelievably accredited and experianced. In short, he is the most qualified economist in the country. I trust him just fine.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 15, 2006 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

New Stad

anyone who thinks that a new stadium wouldn't be good for the city of Minneapolis and for the State of Minnesota they are kidding themselves. Do a little reasearch into other stadiums, economic impact and development. We are all internet savvy. I have to like the dome, I am trying to put butts in seats, but a new stadium would make that a lot easier. I feel happy for the people that have new ball park priority, because when we do get a new park those who dont will be S.O.L for at least a couple few years. My guess and latest knowledge is that the new stadium will have less seating then Dome, mostly lower level and have a great view all around.

If we do not support the new stadium and the Twins the chances of them moving are better then not.

Season Tickets?

by homerdome on Feb 15, 2006 10:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dude

I know you're a salesman, but that was pretty transparently self-serving.

"anyone who thinks that a new stadium wouldn't be good for the city of Minneapolis and for the State of Minnesota they are kidding themselves."

Come on, dude. I'll be the first to admit that stadii have some economic benefits, but to say that these are universal and completely dismiss the concerns of others is, well, ridiculous. Sure, some bar owners and their employees will do well and foot traffic will increase, but do you think some guy in Phillips earning minumum wage is going to see the benefits from this thing? No way, he's just paying higher taxes. It's in the nature of democracy that some people pay for the benefit of others, but be honest about it.

"I have to like the dome, I am trying to put butts in seats, but a new stadium would make that a lot easier."

There's that honesty!

"I feel happy for the people that have new ball park priority, because when we do get a new park those who dont will be S.O.L for at least a couple few years."

Hmmm... nothing like fright and intimidation to bring in business. I guess I'd better send you my couple few dollars right now.

"My guess and latest knowledge is that the new stadium will have less seating then Dome, mostly lower level and have a great view all around."

You mean I better buy now? I'll bet I should walk, not run, huh? Should I just make the check out to you personally?

"If we do not support the new stadium and the Twins the chances of them moving are better then not."

This kind of rhetoric is exactly the problem. I'd bet that the majority of Minnesotans, even Hennepin residents, would be willing to pay to keep the Twins around. But they don't respond to threats and intimidation. And unfortunately, I don't think it's any coincidence that you're a Twins employee. The kind of language you're employing, in a sales pitch of all things, is distant and confrontational. In short, Pohladish. You'd better your own fortunes and those of your organization by working with the community to find a deal that works for everybody.

I'm not the type to flame people, but when I see self-promotion and crass salesmanship on a fan board, I gotta say something...

by dwight zinfandel on Feb 15, 2006 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pointing out ramifications is not a threat.

To me, that's juvenile thinking.

Saying the Twins are going to leave if nothing is done is not a threat - unless you want to believe you can do nothing and the Twins will somehow, someway and for some reason stay in Minnesota forever no matter what.

The people who oppose a Twins stadium should be obliged to take responsibility for the ramifications which follow if they succeed - in short, they ought to be willing to defend the proposition "I oppose a stadium and I don't care if that means the Twins leave town."

by BD57 on Feb 15, 2006 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The truth

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. It is often used as a threat, as in, if you dont do this, well do this to you. But I definatly agree that people do need to be willing to accept possible ramifications.

It is all part of the not wanting to help the rich guy mentality. Yes, Pohlad would get richer, but that doesn't mean it is bad for the rest of us.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 15, 2006 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not trying to cause a scandal

I can't agree with you that there is any qualitative differerence between pointing out negative ramifications in the form of an ultimatum and making a threat.

But I agree with your general vibe that people ought to be willing to stand up, be counted, and defend their position. I'm always for authentic discussion.

Thing is, Homerman wasn't doing that. He was working an angle to sell tickets. The statements he made were inaccurate and tendentious. And I don't like to see that in a fan forum that impresses me day by day with the depth of its knowledge and commitment to accurate judgments.

I think that's a pretty grown up way to think about it.

by dwight zinfandel on Feb 16, 2006 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Leverage

Any good negotiator knows you can't get what you want unless you have leverage. As long as the Twins had the pseudolease with the Humperdink commission, no one would lift a finger to help them. Now that the judge has ruled against Humperdink, the Twins have leverage to get what they have needed for at least a decade if not longer.

Not only that, but Humperdink is actually trying to help its most lucarative tenenat rather than persistently thumbing his nose at the Pohlads. Could it be that as long as Humperdink had the upper hand, he thought he could do whatever he wanted and take wahtever revenues away from the Twins whenever he wanted? "I don't have to let the Twins have much concession revenue at all, Pohlad can afford footing the bill." "I don't have to install new turf until the last minute, it's only the Twins." "I don't have to let the Twins use all my new luxury suites," etc. Now that he faces losing his most lucrative tennant, he has changed his tune.

Call it a threat if you want, I just call it leverage. And Bill Lester, the Governor, a majority in the house, and a burgeoning majority in the Senate are finally listing to the Twins needs.

Joe Mauer for MVP.

by cmathewson on Feb 16, 2006 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE:Leverage

It should be pointed out that officially, the Twins have not mentioned contraction or made any threat. Quite the opposite, they have been extremely quite. That fact alone should bother you if you are a Twins fan. It would seem they are willing to let the stadium issue get resolved without any hub-bub on their part.

The whole contraction issue was was broached last Saturday (2/11/06)by Patrick Reusse in the Star Tribune article titled "Twins are hearing dreaded 'C' word again."

Link - http://www.startribune.com/508/story/240117.html

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Bell and Twins President Dave St. Peter consistently have shrugged off contraction as a renewed possibility." Reusse

"The players have agreed in this basic agreement not to take up a National Labor Relations Act challenge to contraction. They do have the right to bargain the effects." Reusse

"According to the document, the clubs must notify the players of any decision to cut teams effective for 2007 no later than July 1, 2006." Reusse

"This basic agreement expires after this season. There's little chance the language will be as favorable to contraction the next time around. So, if baseball is going to reduce itself to 28 franchises, this is the moment". Reusse

"The Hennepin County deal offered last April was advanced as the Pohlads' last, best effort to guarantee baseball's future in Minnesota." Reusse

So, we must assume that the Twins have an exit plan they are not sharing us. It is very likely they will either sell the team or take the opportunity to be bought out by MLB through contraction and have a clear conscience about it.

Don't expect the Twins to beat the drum - they're leaving that up to us.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 16, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's possible

I certainly don't know that you (or Reusse) are right about this - hopefully not - but unfortunately it does all sound too plausible for comfort.

by adam on Feb 16, 2006 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Twins Stadium

What has changed over time, since the Griffith move from Washington, as well as the Dome built downtown, is the business landscape of the Twin Cities.

Home grown business has long been the booster of local sports teams, before public money was gobbled up by franchises.

But Minnesota is no longer homegrown. Gone are Honeywell, Dayton-Hudson, Pillsbury, Control Data, even Star Tribune (who owned the Metrodome land, hummm). Northwest Bank, First Bank. Even IDS/American Express, Medtronic. Plus many others. Only stalwart seems to be 3M.

Corporations pulling together some seed money worked in favor of the old Twins. Now, most companies have offices in places otehr than the Twin Cities. They will pay for advertising/naming space once the edifice is built, but if it happens or not, they ultimately don't have much of a stake in improving the community.

Arts organziations, too, have suffered from the sell-out of local biz to national biz.

by twintown on Feb 15, 2006 5:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not on my watch

I recently emailed my representative and senator. I just received a response from my representative. She said that she believed that they would be working to get the stadium deal done this session. She continued to state that no one wanted the "Twins to leave on their watch." This attitude could be good for those of us who want a new place to watch our team!

by roger on Feb 15, 2006 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I''

I'll be convinced when they break ground.

Seriously, our state legislature sucks.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 15, 2006 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not even a local Twins fan

But I tell you I think about the team moving or being contracted and I get so hyped to do something, anything to keep it from happening that I don't know where to start.

I think there are benefits that a stadium offers that are difficult to quantify so for those opponents who say show me how the city, state will benefit; it's just not that easy.

At the same time there will be people who will receive no benefit from the stadium but will have to contribute to the cost through taxes. But the same can said for those of you who are paying for a new downtown library (just as an example)

But I think that if the Twins and Minnesota don't come together to solve this problem, the tax payers will pay even more down the road either on another stadium deal or to attract MLB back when the Twins leave or are contracted.

For the record though I like the Dome just fine. I saw plenty of games for the 6 years I lived in Minnesota and I don't have complaints only fond memories of watching my favorite sports team play ball.

GO TWINS

by caluofmn on Feb 15, 2006 7:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Make the Tax Increase Statewide for the Twins

Here.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Stadium Boondoggle Redux

I stopped over to Fishstick's pad and commented. comment thread on the stadium:

What torks me off is that legislators who don't represent Hennepin County are voting to stick it to the Hennepin County taxpayer on this one.

If people want to call the Governor to give him an earful, call 651-296-3391.

In my opinion, if they want to do the stadium deal, then make this a state-wide sales tax rather than having non-Hennepin County legislators sticking it to Hennepin County.
Eva Young

J Ewing who is a frequent sparring partner on the gay marriage issue over at Fishsticks agrees on this:

I keep arguing this same point in Republican circles and it is difficult to do. Most legislators say that if they can "keep the Twins" and not put any of their constituents' tax dollars into it, why shouldn't they? It's a "free vote" for legislators to say "No vote" for Hennepin County taxpayers. I have been saying that you either have the principle of "no taxpayer money for stadiums" or you don't. Your point is good, too, that either we have a law requiring a referendum or we don't.

My bigger arguments are two sides of the same coin: First, if you are so certain you cannot convince voters this is a good idea, then why do you want to impose it on them?

Secondly, if the stadium were a good idea-- a money-making proposition-- why aren't banks and investors lining up in droves to buy a piece of it?
J. Ewing

Ok, Governor, Speaker Sviggum, Majority Leader Dean Johnson - step up to the plate and save the twins by making this stadium tax statewide. Quit sticking it to Hennepin County Taxpayers!

posted by lloydletta

I'm not a regular at baseball games, but I am fine with the Dome and don't see a need for a new stadium.

A downtown library doesn't have librarians making the kind of outrageous out of control salaries that major league players make. Also, the downtown library in Minneapolis won voter approval for the tax increase.

If the Twins had put the money they've spent on lobbying the legislature on going to venture capitalists and investors to get their stadium, they'd have a stadium by now.

Projects such as waste water treatment plants, fire stations, schools and public swimming pools require voter approval. Why should the Twins be exempt?

Another part of this plan that is interesting is that the Twins are exempt from the state sales tax for materials for this project. This isn't the case for local government projects - such as waste water treatment plants.

by lloydletta on Feb 24, 2006 5:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Salary

I'm confused how it is relevent that baseball players make more than librarians.

That little comment really betrays one of the biggest irrational negative factors to the stadium. Players and owners are rich, and we dont want to give them to benefit from us. Never mind the fact that we would also benefit probobly far greater. Screw the rich guy, we're not helping him. Yeah, if a rich person benefits, it MUST be bad for everyone else.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 26, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Relevance

I also replied to your other post below, but to summarize here: public funding for a new Minneapolis Central Library (approved by voter referendum in 2000) goes directly into a freely-accessible facility. Public funding for a new pro sports stadium has become an indirect way to finance an oversized team payroll. This isn't necessarily "Pohlad hate" or "A-Rod hate" or something like that, but it's a legitimate question for the baseball business which is demanding public investment beyond what their customers are able (or willing) to pay.

See my post below for more details.

by spycake on Feb 27, 2006 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Playr's salaries

If Torri Hunter made 300 million dollars a year or played for free, the same stadium would cost the same amount. We'd be paying for the building, not taking on his contract.

What Hunter makes is not related and does not correlate.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 28, 2006 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rich Get Richer

The point is more along the lines of enough is enough. Ticket prices don't go down. Salaries for players go up. Or, the new stadium allows you to absically pay more for the same players.

I want the city/state to give me $5 million to rebuild my store in Uptown and allow me to pay my employees $30 an hour to work there.

by twintown on Feb 26, 2006 2:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In principle...

I agree. Public dollars shouldn't be used for any private enterprise. But that isn't the way it works. Our taxes go to pay for many projects that some group of advocates wants but can't afford to pay for. As long as our tax dollars are going to pay for all these other projects, I would like to have some go to pay for something many of us could appreciate...a new stadium. If government can agree to stop spending money on everything other than the bare essentials (roads, schools without waste, certain infrastructure, police, fire, etc), I can certainly live without their involvement in a stadium.

by roger on Feb 26, 2006 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: Rich Get Richer

Twintown, if your business had a high enough value to Minneapolis someone might help you rebuild your store. Tax increment financing is used all the time if a business is highly valued by a community.

Maybe you need to consider selling, closing or moving your business to a community that will value your contribution more than Minneapolis.

Also, if your business generated enough revenue and your employees have skills in high demand then $30 an hour might not be enough for you to retain your workers. A business has to pay competitive wages and benefits in order to keep highly-skilled valued employees. If you can't keep your highly skilled workers you may lose your completive edge.

Hey, give Carl Pohlad a call; he is working through a similar situation. It looks like you guys have a lot in common.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 26, 2006 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I'm sick of people complaining about athletes making a lot of money. Not in the snese that "hey, marginal starters are getting payed a ton these days!", but in the sense that, "why should athletes make sop much more than us?". Because they can be. It is capitalism. The sport/enterprise makes a ton of money because people like us (LOTS of peole liek us) love it and pour tons of money into it. Therefore, the players deserve to make that much money. If the sport weren't as popular, it wouldn't make as much money and the athletes wouldn't be so well payed.

What the athletes make is irrelevent to the discussion. The only questions that matter are: Do we value the Twins as a part of the culture and economy of the area? Do we want the Twins to stay/remain as competitive as possible? Do we want oyur major league club to play in a good facility? Is the Metrodome a good facility? Is it even adequete? What are the costs of providing a new stadium?

Those are the questions that matter. How much money Brad Radke makes is not relevant to whether or not we want a new stadium to watch our Twins in.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 26, 2006 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Player's salaries aren't exactly irrelevant...

Skyrocketing player salaries, and a very fractious group of owners, indicate that major league baseball isn't exactly the most stable business around. This should cause some concern for a public which will spend $375 million on a facility whose sole purpose is to be leased to a MLB franchise (a "small-market" one, at that). If we were building this stadium for, say, the Gophers, or even a MLB team circa 1950 (i.e. no movement, contraction, or expansion in 50 years), I don't think the size of players' or owners' pocketbooks would be of much concern.

You have to understand that although the players are elite entertainers and deserve to be compensated appropriately, their current salaries have no real-world basis. For about the last 30 years, they've been driven up exponentially by a handful of millionaire (or billionaire) sportsmen owners, and in an artificial attempt to help the rest of the increasing number of teams "compete", communities are being forced to subsidize these salaries indirectly through financing facilities and paying ever-higher ticket prices.

It's been proven that despite the number of people who "love it and pour tons of money into it" in Minnesota, it hasn't been enough for the satisfaction of the MLB powers-that-be. Who's to say that once the Twins get a new stadium and the Yankees get a new stadium, the Yankees still won't dwarf the Twins revenue and we'll be right back where we started? I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this stadium investment if MLB were to make some meaningful reforms in their business stategy.

by spycake on Feb 27, 2006 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Once again

Once again, Capitalism.

The players are payed that because they can be. If the money weren't being pumped into the sport, they wouldn't be making so much.

Simple supply and demand.

In other words, things are worth what someone will pay for it.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 28, 2006 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Simply supply and demand"?!

It's not "simple supply and demand." Player's salaries have no basis in the revenue the whole sport generates, at least not in baseball. The only possible correlation is local revenue, which isn't shared adequately by MLB, and even those figures get skewed because it's not a traditional "business" in the sense that most owners are willing to lose money (i.e. pay players greater salaries than they can afford) in order to "win a championship". And in turn, any inflated salaries from special circumstances very directly "set the market" in salary arbitration and free agency for all other players, no matter what their local market can support.

And because the local revenue generated in markets like Minnesota, Milwaukee, KC, etc. is much smaller than that of NY, Boston, Chicago, and LA, and revenue still isn't shared adequately, those small-market teams need a boost in their local revenue, not only to compete, but just to survive! And where does that local revenue come from? A publicly-financed new stadium. Obviously the public funding goes into the stadium and not directly into Torii Hunter's pockets, but that stadium's sole purpose is to generate extra revenue for the team so they can pay players like Hunter. There may be other benefits to the stadium that warrant a public contribution, but to ignore the obvious factors about the business of baseball is rather ostrich-like.

To summarize, there are lots of other factors that determine player salaries than "simple supply and demand", especially when dealing with a national business that's really more of a sport which operates separate but related local franchises. And I agree that high player salaries don't preclude public investment in a stadium, but certainly the state of the baseball business and its future is very relevant to that public investment (especially in a "small market" like ours).

by spycake on Feb 28, 2006 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Collective

The salaries of the players on individual teams cannot be said to be driven up by local revenue explicitly. What that revenue does is allow themto sign more players. However, a player's market value is a players market value.Just because a plyer plays for a low market team does not mean they are payed less. Radke or Hunter, for example, have market value contracts at least and they play for a small revenue team. The difference is the small market teams are able to sign less free agents and some free agents will be priced out of their league. That doesn't change where the value of the players are, that changes where the teams can afford.

What I'm trying to say is, team doesn't determine salary. By that logic, the Yankees would offer, say, Micheal Cuddyer ove r 5 million dollars because the Yanks have 5 times the revenue the Twins do.

So, to sum up that inconsise thing, the team's wealth determine's its ability to afford the players, not where the relative value is. How much money is in the sport overall, ergo how much the league as an average can afford to pay determines a player's value.

Building a new stadium isn't determining the salaries of local players. However, the act of supporting baseball in such a strong way as building a stadium shows support for the current state of the game, and in turn, condones the high salaries. This is an important difference.

by AdamOnFirst on Mar 1, 2006 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Summary

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, and I don't think you understand my point either.

I didn't bring up player salaries, so I don't know why I'm saying this, but it all flows very logically for me. We (the public) are being asked to pay for a ballpark in order to boost the Twins' revenue so that they, in turn, can compete with other teams in signing players with increasing salaries. That's been a sticking point in the stadium drive for over 10 years, since the dawn of the stadium drive (although the team has wisely chosen to put it in the backseat for now, and focus on "outdoor baseball" and the like).

Obviously there are other benefits and factors to stadium, of varying importance to different individuals. But you can't really ignore the revenue factor and how it has come about.

by spycake on Mar 1, 2006 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let Me Just Say This

How is it capitalism to subsidize the contruction of a baseball stadium?

by MNPundit on Mar 4, 2006 4:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You Sound Conflicted

I have a hard time knowing where you come down on the stadium. In most of your posts you seem pro-stadium and in others, like your post "Player's salaries aren't exactly irrelevant..." you seem anti-stadium. Pick a horse and ride it.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 28, 2006 12:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Conflict

I think the public as a whole is conflicted about the stadium. I do my best to try and educate both pro- and anti-stadium folks about the different angles to the issue. In a way, I'd like the stadium to be built because I want to quit worrying about it. But on the other hand, given the economics of baseball (and pro sports in general), I don't know if a new stadium will do anything to fix the problems in the system.

Has anyone noticed the recent Seattle Supersonics situation? The owner wants $220 million in state funds to renovate the 10-year-old Key Arena, or build a new one, and he's already talked about moving if they don't get it. Why? In large part because the public has recently built even newer baseball and football parks, and the Sonics feel like they can't compete:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/260751_sonics24.html

Will we eventually see something like this happen with Target Center? It's lost a lot of business to the Xcel Energy Center, and new stadiums and corporate boxes for the Twins, Vikes, and Gophers probably won't help.

I don't think the stadium is a cut-and-dried issue, and although it's easier to digest that way, I think it does a great disservice to many legitimate concerns for either side to simplify it so much.

by spycake on Feb 28, 2006 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two points...

When Target Center was built, it was done by private individuals (TWolves owners). It was built somewhat like the Dome...inexpensively. Along comes a state of the art Xcel Energy Center and yes, the Target Center doesn't compete well.

I don't know if the circle will continue and 15 years from now the same problems will exist with the economics of baseball. More important, IMO, is the fact that the Dome wasn't built for baseball and it is a terrible place to watch the game. No matter whether or not the economics of the game are better, the Minnesota fans will have a wonderful stadium to watch outdoor baseball. That is why we should be willing to pay $.03 on every $20 purchase...for our enjoyment of the game!

by roger on Feb 28, 2006 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting, but...

I don't think the Target Center was built all that "inexpensively" -- ballparks.com says it cost $104 million, and Xcel cost $130 million 10 years later. But certainly newer stadiums will have more built-in amenities to make the Target Center pale in comparison -- will we be on the hook for an upgrade there?

And I know the "Metrodome wasn't built for baseball" argument works well in isolation, but the Vikings and Gophers, playing the sport the Metrodome WAS built for (and excels at, in my opinion), both want new publicly-financed stadiums as well.

And I wouldn't be so confidant that the "economics of baseball" will fix themselves in the near future. They still have no good revenue sharing system, or any sort of system to control out-of-control big-market owners from greatly inflating salaries.

by spycake on Feb 28, 2006 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say

...that the economics of baseball will fix themselves. What I said is the benefit from a new stadium will be for the fans...who will finally be able to enjoy baseball in a stadium built for baseball. It is not in isolation when the stadium was built for football...and needing their first baseball stadium has nothing to do with whether or not the Vikings and Gophers want stadiums. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Vikings and Gophers staying in the Dome after the Twins move into the proposed baseball only stadium.

by roger on Feb 28, 2006 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Target Center's cost?

The $104mm may have been what the City paid when they bought it. Although I can't remember the exact cost, I believe the original cost when it was built was less.

by roger on Mar 1, 2006 8:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Conflict

Neither you, I now anyone on this blog are going to fix MLB's business problems no matter how we might think we have the best ideas. Reality check here - if getting MLB to fix their problems is a condition of getting a stadium built we can kiss it goodbye.

BTW - Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Target Center is owned by the City of Minneapolis. In 2003/2004 I remember reading that Glen Taylor put up about $4 million and the Minneapolis City Council kicked in $14 million for upgrades.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 28, 2006 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Target Center is...

...owned by the City. They bought it from Harv & Marv, the original owners of the TWolves who built and owned the stadium. I don't know the exact date the City bought Target Center, however, I believe it was around the time Harv and Marv sold the team to Glen Taylor.

by roger on Mar 1, 2006 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs