Twins Scoring Drought

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:57 pm

There comes a time when you have to decide whether a player is worth it anymore. Hunter has been the face of this franchise for the past half decade. He has made big plays and has been for the most part an exemplary citizen in the community. If the Twins are struggling and out of the race by the deadline, it is likely he will be shipped elsewhere to a contender who needs an outfielder. If we are still in the race, it's a tough call. Trading him could really disrupt team chemistry and be damaging for the playoff run. On the other hand, letting him walk at the end of the season and getting nothing in return for him could be a bad step for the franchise. The question is whether he is worth it or not. He would most likely want a raise, and I don't think paying him more than the 12.5 million he is making this season is at all justified, not with his immature approach at the plate. He plays defense with the best of them and is a good clubhouse presence, but at some point he has to mature at the plate, and after all the AB's he has gotten, I don't see that ever happening. If he is willing to come back a reduced price tag, I am all for bringing him back. If he is looking for a deal of 10+ million, we will have no choice but to part ways and look towards the future.

Irishmans Shanty · Post by **Irishmans Shanty** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:19 pm

Recent talk, some of which I may be responsible for, has dealt with overpaid players (Radke, Hunter). I have to admit that if these are Terry Ryan's two biggest duds, he's doing a pretty good job. There are 150 games left, Hunter and Radke could and hopefully will make this a fun summer, if they don't, their combined $20 million are off the books after this year. A lot of teams would like to be in the Twins' position after this year. When looking at the finances of other teams, you can see that some teams have idiots creating the contracts. Look at the Sox, if '03 Konerko rears his ugly head, they owe a .190 hitter around $55 million over the next 4 years. If Thome breaks down, that's a $30 million dollar gimp. If Vazquez ends up being average, that's a $26 million Radke. Contreras, if his original birth certificate is found, they may find out he is a $20 million forty-something. What ifs are just that, what ifs, but the Sox they could really be financially hamstrung real soon. How about the Indians, their payroll is less than the Twins right now, but don't let that fool you. They have real good talent that is approaching free agency soon. As of now, Paul Byrd's salary is nearly equal to all of the following combined; Boone, Cliff Lee, Hafner, V. Martinez, Peralta, Westbrook, and Sizemore. Good luck signing all those guys again. I know Sizemore and Belliard have already been extended, but Hafner, Westbrook, Martinez, Lee, and Peralta have some serious dough coming. They can't keep them all. How would you like to be a fan of the teams stuck with the following; Bagpipes 19m, Mussina 19m, Helton 16m, C.Ho Park 15.3m, Ordonez 16m, Hampton 14.7m, Abreu 13.3m, Beltre 12.9m, Wood 12m, Kendall 11.5m, Nevin 10.3m, Soriano 10m, Burrell 9.7m, Klesko, 9m, Lopez 9m, Benson 8.3m, Pavano 8m, The Gambler 8m, R. Ortiz 7.8m, Jenkins 7.8m, Giles 7.6. Some of these guys have 2-3 more years left on these deals, with the final years being even bigger. These aren't the only thieves either, there are some real, real bad players making between 4-7m through out the league.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:03 am

I dont know that the Twins have any overpaid players based on 'the market'. According to some, Radke is a bargain at 9 mill. But Ryan is on a budget. Because of that he has had to evaluate whether he should spend 9 million on a Radke and whatever it will take to keep Hunter. The Yankees dont have those issues. It doesnt matter if they make a bad decision and 'overpay' someone who has a bad year. The White Sox won the World Series last year, convincingly. They have a lot more revenue than the Twins. They arent like the Yankees but they can afford to make mistakes too. If Thome gets hurt, he gets hurt. They got other guys. They won without Thome last year When Hunter went down last year, so did the Twins. Lew Ford is a good guy to have on your team but everyday in centerfield? So, it doesnt matter to a lot of teams that they make mistakes and sign guys for a lot of money when they shouldnt. It does to the Twins.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:27 am

If the Twins want to have veteran players on their team who have produced they will have to shell out money and thanks to owners like Steinbrenner they'll probably have to overpay. I wouldn't say Radke's a bargain but his salary is not out of whack for a solid veteran pitcher. Hunter is overpaid, but at least they didn't re-sign Jacque Jones who is basically the same player with lesser skills. The Twins payroll is around $63m, a comparable team would be the Oakland Athletics at $62m. They're paying $11.5m to Jason Kendall, a catcher who didn't hit ONE home run last year. They're paying Barry Zito $7.9m, whose numbers are a bit better than Radke's and he's also a leftie. I would say based on their budget, Ryan has not been irresponsible. And thank god, we're not Marlins fans! Their budget is $14m, yes that's $14m. They could barely afford Jason Kendall... Salary stats are available at: <a href="http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ...  The Yankees payroll is an obscene $194m, 3 times the Twins.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:49 am

I am less connected to major league sports now than ever before. The reason is these kinds of discussions. I have enough of my own problems figuring out how I can pay for college tuition and all of the crap my family thinks they need. I dont need to be burdened with the finances of pro sports. Id rather pro sports be a diverson from my 'problems' not an extension of them. Anybody know what I mean?

hawkfan70 · Post by **hawkfan70** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:10 pm

Dear Twins Fan: As many of you know, the Twins pursuit for a new ballpark is in full swing at the Minnesota State Capitol. The Twins and Hennepin County have renewed our historic agreement aimed at building a 42,000-seat open-air ballpark in Minneapolis' warehouse district. The plan builds a ballpark with NO state money and ensures the long-term viability of Twins baseball. We have two important hearings this week in the House Tax Committee and I can't stress enough the importance of getting the ballpark legislation through this committee without the referendum requirement. In a unique move, Representative Phil Krinkie, chair of the House Tax Committee, has decided to hold two meetings to hear the Twins bill. The first meeting takes place today at 3 p.m. at the Capitol where testimony in favor of the bill will occur. The second meeting will take place tomorrow at 6 p.m. at the Oak Grove Middle School auditorium in Bloomington where testimony in opposition to the bill will occur. Given the unusual nature of Thursday's meeting at the school, we are working to mobilize as many fans as possible to attend and demonstrate their support for the Twins bill by filling up the auditorium. This is where you come in. We strongly encourage ALL Twins Fans, their family, and friends to attend tomorrow evening's hearing at Oak Grove Middle School. And, we ask that you wear something Twins-related to demonstrate your support of the team and the new stadium. The school is located at 1300 West 106th Street in Bloomington. Below are driving directions. I thank you for your consideration and hope to see you tomorrow evening. Feel free to contact me or any Twins representative with questions. We appreciate your ongoing support of the Minnesota Twins! Sincerely, Dave St. Peter President, Minnesota Twins 612-375-1366 I just got this in my email does he want none supporters at todays meeting also? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... wkfan70</A> at: 4/19/06 12:33 pm

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:29 pm

Its kind of a pathetic letter. Show up and wear your Twins garb and then they will agree to spend 250 million or whatever it is. What do you boys think about an open air stadium? Will that work?

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:44 pm

I hear you packerboy, my car needs new rear struts and the shop tells me it'll be $1000 to fix it. I'm working extra hours at my 2nd job to pay for it, but I wasn't able to take my boys up to my parents last weekend because it isn't fixed yet. If I could throw strikes at 85+ mph I could probably afford my own personal mechanic, but that's life. There's no question that the money athletes make is way out of whack, but I like the games too much to stop watching. One of the things that makes high school hockey more appealing is that the game is, theoretically at least, purer without the money although the greed is starting to filter down. I love music but I haven't been to an arena show in years because the cost is so prohibitive. I'm finding that I like the local bar scene in the Twin Cities enough that I don't really miss the big shows, a good band in a bar is more enjoyable to me now. Part of the reason is that I know I'm not foregoing fixing my car to pay for the show, but it's also a more intimate, personal affair. Likewise, a high school hockey game offers a cheaper, but more intense experience.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:18 pm

Though I love outdoor baseball and make yearly trips to places like Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago to see a game or two each year I don't think a stand alone outdoor stadium will be good for the Twins after the honeymoon period ends. The weather just stinks in April and May most years and who in their right mind wants to sit out in 35-45 degree nights to watch a Twins game? The Twins rely so heavily on walk up sales that the weather could kill them without a retractable roof. If we're going to spend the money an a new stadium I hope they do it right and not on the cheap.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:04 pm

I agree. This has been a great spring so far but remember last year.. we were dodging snowflakes in May. When we we were at the old Met there were no night games until late in May. Back then the season started on April 10th .The World Series was done by the end of the first week in Oct. and they played all day games. A lot has changed.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:43 pm

I've been to some Gopher baseball games the last few years where it was nice when we sat down at the start but had to leave because it got too cold. They really need to have a retractable roof here, but I'm so tired of the dome that I find anything else appealing.

Wild4hockey · Post by **Wild4hockey** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:31 pm

In terms of the Twins trying to get a new stadium, if history is any indicator it is going to be a tough fight. I am a strong proponnent of having the Twins in Minnesota, but I think tax dollars financing it are a poor way to achieve a new stadium. Tax dollars are just simply a reallocation of money from one person to another and it is very "unfair" to require people who get no benefit out of a new stadium to pay for it. Cities have been fooled into believing they cannot be a top notch town unless they have professional sporting teams. I am a true believer in the free market system. Trust me if enough people want the Twins to stay in Minneapolis/St.Paul then they will pay for it. i.e. through higher ticket prices and a privately funded stadium. I think public dollars to finance private ventures is wrong. My belief extends to all areas like art museums, theatres, etc... I live in Anchorage and the city has a performing arts center that only services a small, high income demographic, yet it runs a deficit. This is wrong because the low income families cannot afford a ticket (which generally is between $25-100). So essentially tax dollars to finance things like sports and theatres are just a subsidy for anyone who wants to attend, but a burden for those who don't. Sports are obviously a huge money maker, if you want to see players salaries decrease, vote no on increasing taxes and yes to privately funded stadiums. Then if the owners have millions tied up in a stadium they won't have the upper-hand in negotiations and the city and the teams fans will benefit. That is my position. Sorry if it is off subject, but I believe it is pertinent. I suggest anyone interested in this debate read the book "uncovering the dome" it talks about how the Metrodome was financed.

Irishmans Shanty · Post by **Irishmans Shanty** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:25 pm

The MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement states that the league can move to contract up to two teams after this year if they want. The union can't fight this because it has already been agreed upon in the CBA. Face it, contraction candidates are clearly TB, FL, Tor, KC and the Twins. Take the Nationals off the list because they have a new stadium in the works. Without a new stadium the Twins will be gone soon. I don't want that day to come.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:16 am

Wild4, I dont agree with anything you posted. Why do we pull out this "people who dont use it shouldnt have to pay for it" philosophy only when it comes time to talk about stadiums or amenities ? I dont have any kids in the public school system. A lot of taxpayers dont. Why do I have to pay for it? The list of things that taxpayers money is spent on that I dont use is long. Same for everybody. If we incorporated your dont spend money on it unless everybody uses it philosophy we would have Police , Fire, Sewer, Street/Highway maintenece, necessary Government and Defense. Maybe a couple more things but that would be about it. We have for quite some time now spent public money on amenities. How much money is spent every year in this state on Parks and Rec? How much money is spent on the regulation and protection of wildlife and fisheries so people can enjoy those things? All of this money is spent so that people can enjoy their lives a litle bit. What the hell is wrong with that? Same principles apply to a decent ballpark. Get out a little bit. Go to Wrigley, Comerica, Citizens, Camden Yards....see what these places are like. Walk into the Xcel if you want to see how public money can be spent and how hundreds of thousands can enjoy it. Quit worrying about if everybody can take advantage of it and start thinking about how so many will. Now, can I get a witness to say Amen! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckerboy</A> at: 4/20/06 9:30 am

Blue Breeze · Post by **Blue Breeze** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The list of things that taxpayers money is spent on that I dont use is long. Same for everybody.<hr></blockquote> That's a very good point. Tax dollars, in theory, are used to improve the community as a whole and cannot be tailored to an individual's liking as much as we may want it to be. If public tax dollars were put toward a new stadium, it would be under the assumption that it would be of benefit to the community and would provide added revenue to the area around the ballpark. New business could boom, and the area around the ballpark could thrive. There are many roads, schools, etc, that we don't use but end up paying for. If this stadium deal does not go through, and the Twins end up moving, I have a feeling that a large number of people would miss baseball here. I also have a hunch that eventually there would be a push for an expansion franchise here, which would bring a new stadium and end up costing a lot of money in the long term. This is years down the road, but I could see that potentially happening should the Twins move or be contracted. Back to the Twins action at hand. I went to the game last night, and I wasn't dissapointed at all, especially considering I got $3 student tickets and #1 hot dogs. Lohse looked dreadful early, but fortunately middle relievers Willie Eyre, Francisco Liriano and Juan Rincon came to the rescue. I was impressed with the comeback against a team with some pretty good pitching, although the starting pitching is still a concern. Nice to see Ruben Sierra get a start and hit the ball well. Win or loss today it has been an impressive homestand. The Twins current scoreless drought sits at 0 innings.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:42 am

They are 7-7 and with the schedule being what it is thats not bad no matter how they do it. But the starting pitching is atrocious. ERA of 7+. That has to get a lot better or it will be a long season. I am concerned about whether Silva, Radke and Lohse can pitch. What we have gotten from Silva the last couple of years may have been a fluke. Radke could be done and Lohse may never be. The O has improved a lot but the pitching has to begin to look something like it has the last few years.

ChrisK · Post by **ChrisK** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:25 pm

First off, AMEN! packerboy. I haven't checked numbers, but it's my impression that pitching across the majors is getting battered thus far this season so the Twins aren't alone. As I said before, Radke needs a little time, his problem is the grip on the changeup which he should be able to get back. I'm not sure what Silva's problem is, I haven't seen him pitch. A recent article said he's normally been a groundball pitcher but he's been giving up flyballs. Groundball pitchers usually have a good slider or sinker and Silva may be overthrowing it and getting the ball up, I don't know. The article indicated the Angels were laying off his sinker, so another possibility is that the league has caught on to him and he has not adjusted. Lohse has to go. At the rate he's pitching right now the Twins would have been better off keeping Joe Mays.

Wild4hockey · Post by **Wild4hockey** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:48 pm

Look, I am sure by just reading my post you think I am wrong. Clearly you did not read it close enough. You say, "why do I have to pay for public school if I don't have kids?", you choose to pay taxes on public schools because it is an economic benefit to you too have educated people in society. You like many others seem to have this false sense that if the government doesn't pay for it, it won't exist. You are wrong. You say money is spent so people can enjoy their lives, you proved my point. The free market system is designed to do exactly that. If someone wants something him/her should have to pay for it. It is clearly wrong to force taxpayers to pay for anything that is not a pure public good.(Public good is defined as something that is non-rival and non-excludable; simply meaning you cannot stop someone from enjoying the benefits). I am sorry that I sound like a textbook, but I think more people need to take an economics course and quit listening to politicians who get it wrong 95% of the time. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The list of things that taxpayers money is spent on that I dont use is long. Same for everybody<hr></blockquote> Doesn't that bother you? It certainly bothers me. Say hooray for the Neo-liberal revolution.(look it up if you are curious)

Irishmans Shanty · Post by **Irishmans Shanty** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:20 pm

Packerboy......good to see you are back and critically analyzing the ills of our favorite pro sports team again. Your post of a few days ago had me worried. You had the tone that you were going to abandon us with 148 games still left on the docket. As ESPN's Mike Greenberg said shortly after the 911 attacks "I know I have sports in perspective, not because I know how important they are, rather, because I know how important they are not". I agree fully. As far as the Twins' new stadium goes, If it were up to me they would play in the dome another 20 years. But we know that is not reality. Were it not for the dome, they don't win two world series titles. The crappy surface, white roof, and thunderous crowd did a lot more for those title teams than the Bloomington Met ever would. Yes, the seats are small. The concourses are narrow. You can't see the Big Dipper from General Admission, but who cares. As long as the pitchers are throwing strikes, and career stiffs, like Cuddyer, are launching bombs in extra-innings, I don't care where they play. All I do know is they won't be playing much longer unless that new stadium is a reality. I have taken some econ courses, and even passed a few of them. What I seem to have taken from those Reagan Bashing Professors was that there are a finite number of dollars, you can spend a few on butter and what's left over goes to guns. In this case, if guns are the stadium, then start using margarine because butter will be scarce.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:17 am

Wild4, Whether we help finance a stadium or not isnt an economic issue, it is a political one. So, I dont care if you have a Phd in econ, it wont help on this issue. Besides, economists get it wrong as much as politicians. I agree that paying taxes for public schools is in the publics best interest and I dont mind doing it (its not a choice, by the way). I woud rather live in a world in which people are educated. So, it does not bother me that I dont use them and other things provided by government. I would also rather live in a world that has parks, clean lakes with fish in them, arts and theater, deer to hunt etc etc. The fact of the matter is that if government doesnt step in and pay for and regulate these and other things, they would not exist. Same is true with ball parks. They are owned and operated for the public good. We cant stop anyone from going to a ball game. I dont understand why we can routinely spend millions and millions on amenities every year but when a once every 30 year expense of a ballpark comes up, our brains lock up and we cant speak anything but rhetoric. I have a great deal of pride in the people of Minnesota but on this issue, we are really out to lunch. Hopefully that will change.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:54 am

Irish, I'll never abandon our Twins. Even if they dont make the playoffs, I think we will see a lot of good baseball this season. Yah, you are right, Id really miss the dome if they tore it down. Lately, I have really grown attatched to the way the draperies out in the second deck in the right center field bleachers have become dingy and dirty looking. But hey, even if the Twins arent playing well, there is always the plastic milk bottle down in the RF corner. The place is kind of Gothic with a cheap plastic influence. In fact, I am starting a SAVE THE DOME FOR BASEBALL campaign. Send donations in c/o packerboy to minnhock.com. Visa or Master card accepted. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

Wild4hockey · Post by **Wild4hockey** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Whether we help finance a stadium or not isn't an economic issue, it is a political one<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>They are owned and operated for the public good. We cant stop anyone from going to a ball game. <hr></blockquote> Yes you can, it is called the price of admission. That is exactly what a price is designed to do manage a finite resource. If you couldn't exclude people, stadium would have to accomodate seating for the entire population. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fact of the matter is that if government doesnt step in and pay for and regulate these and other things, they would not exist. <hr></blockquote> Only true in pure public goods, which baseball is not. All of these points are so blatently wrong. I will give you semi-credit on one point, the stadium issue is a political one. Economists simply measure the cost-benefit analysis of a project and other areas of the economy and make decisions based on numbers. Therefore using tax dollars to finance a stadium is an economic issue. I am a huge supporter of the twins and would love nothing more than going to a new stadium, but I understand that I should have to pay for it. Look, it is not your fault you and many others have been fooled into this way of thought. Will it ever change probably not, but clearly I have presented why it is bad to finance it through tax dollars. Ultimately what will happen is someone on a city council in bloomington or some other suburb will convince its council to pay millions to finance a stadium, a special tax will be put on admission, hotels, restaurants and maybe property taxes in that town. Twins ticket prices will increase and we will have a beautiful new stadium to attend games at. The loser will be the single mom in that city who can't afford to go to the game, but also is struggling to make ends meet because a new tax, on her already stretched income is making her life even more difficult. Your'e right the politicians will choose, they will choose to be wrong again.

hawkfan70 · Post by **hawkfan70** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:37 am

and the owners gets richer and the players make more what a great deal for the taxpayer <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)">

larsey · Post by **larsey** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:52 pm

You forgot about these...parking goes up and so do the tickets. Wild tickets for a family of 4 $ 120.00 Parking $ 15.00 Sodas, hotdogs, snacks $ 45.00 Souvineer's $ 75.00 Total Cha/Ching $255.00 PRICELESS!

sterfry9 · Post by **sterfry9** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:32 pm

is torii in a contract year this year?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Twins Scoring Drought

Re: New Whipping Boy

Dollars

Re: Dollars

Re: Dollars

Money talks

alrighty then

Re: alrighty then

Re: Money in sports

Re: Money in sports

Re: Money in sports

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Twins

Re: Twins

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

Re: Outdoor baseball

pro sports

Re: pro sports

torii hunter