PDA

View Full Version : Are the Twins really "perpetual losers?"


DumpJerry
07-21-2009, 09:22 AM
A debate has broken out in a thread unrelated to the Twins as to whether or not they really are "perpetual losers." Given their success, pretty much each year, to compete for a playoff position with their meager (relative to other teams in the AL) resources, they are pretty successful. They have been to the playoffs in four of the last seven seasons (missing the playoffs by only one game last year) and won the World Series twice since 1987. Starting with the 2001 season, they have finished as low as third in the standings only twice.

I always thought "perpetual" meant something along the lines of "constant" or "always." The Royals, the Pirates, the Nationals/Expos, now those are perpetual losers!

hi im skot
07-21-2009, 09:25 AM
The Twins are crappy.

g0g0
07-21-2009, 09:26 AM
I agree DumpJerry. I always like the teams that use their farm systems and scouting for success rather than trying to buy it *cough* Yankees.

voodoochile
07-21-2009, 09:32 AM
Yes and so are the toons, kittens and obviously the Royals. In fact aside from the Sox and Yankees, I'd label most of MLB and certainly all of the AL that way. I don't pretend to be objective on this matter though...

HomeFish
07-21-2009, 09:35 AM
Since 2001, the Twins have been the most consistently good team in the AL Central.

Dibbs
07-21-2009, 09:37 AM
The Twins are good every year. How are they losers? :scratch:

The Royals or Pirates would be an example of a perpetual loser.

chisoxfanatic
07-21-2009, 09:37 AM
The Twins are crappy.
They are also perpetual losers.

mccoydp
07-21-2009, 09:51 AM
Watching them in their Baggy Dome makes me physically ill. Yes, they're losers, regardless of their record.

spawn
07-21-2009, 09:51 AM
Not even close.

TwinKess
07-21-2009, 09:55 AM
No!

Heh, I'm biased though

RedHeadPaleHoser
07-21-2009, 10:02 AM
The Twins suck.

Because they're in the same division as the White Sox and are the legitimate threat to the division every season.

The Twins, while "scrappy", are a solid team. I wouldn't say they're perpetual losers.

TornLabrum
07-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Did somebody say churros?

white sox bill
07-21-2009, 10:05 AM
Define "loser"...couldn't you make same point about that team 8 miles to the North? The last few yrs they really haven't been losers. Twins always seem to win more than they lose. I voted no

jdm2662
07-21-2009, 10:10 AM
While they are made out to be much better than they are, the Twins are hardly losers. What I don't want to hear about how scrappy they are and how untalented they are, etc. Mauer and Moreanu will start on most teams in the league. Cuddleyer, after being injured last season, is a pretty solid player. Hell, Kubel isn't a slouch, either. They are hitting quite a bit of homers this season.

Marqhead
07-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Just because they win on the field doesn't mean they aren't losers in their hearts and souls.

hi im skot
07-21-2009, 10:15 AM
The Twins are obviously a successful franchise. They are consistently in the hunt and have a great, fundamentally-sound farm system. They have two of the best hitters in baseball, and a ton of "no-namers" that constantly over-achieve.

All that being said, they are crappy.

chisoxfanatic
07-21-2009, 10:17 AM
Once JB98 copyrights his slogan, it won't matter what this poll's results are.

hi im skot
07-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Just because they win on the field doesn't mean they aren't losers in their hearts and souls.

:rolling:

Well done!

BleacherBandit
07-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Nobody has said anything about their crappy players whose only talent translates well on astroturf only. Nick Punto? Delmon Young? Alexei Casilla? Denard Span? All of these guys can't hit consistantly this season, but they can hit in that crappy home of theirs. I hate the Twins, and I am one that believes the rumor that they adjust the temperature in the dome to better suit themselves.

Next year, when they move into a legitimate stadium, they're gonna burn, I know it.

voodoochile
07-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Winning in the regular season is not the same as being a winner. When the chips are down, they find a way to lose, time and time again. Game 163 last year is only one example of they way that team fails when the games matter most.

Besides, I'm a Sox fan and this is WSI. Totally Biased, Completely Unobjective, Utterly Petty, WSI...

hawkjt
07-21-2009, 10:43 AM
As long as they play on a plastic field in a dome...they are losers..as are their fans.

Now, that said, next year, will the inevitable sellout for the season due to interest in a new stadium create an infusion of funds for FA acquisition?

Just curious if their payroll will bounce up next year and beyond..course it might just to keep M & M happy. Have to wonder if they will start adding a F/A in the future with more cash.

white sox bill
07-21-2009, 10:45 AM
Couldn't same be said for us from 1919 thru 2005?

LITTLE NELL
07-21-2009, 10:52 AM
When you contend just about every year you are not losers. I hate them almost as much as the Flubs and BoSox but they have a good farm system which I have seen first hand with their Ft. Myers team in the Florida State League, they win their division just about every year.
You also can't take away their 2 WS championships in 87 and 91.

voodoochile
07-21-2009, 10:54 AM
Couldn't same be said for us from 1919 thru 2005?

Maybe on a Twinkies board. Not here... never here... :?:

:tongue:

asindc
07-21-2009, 11:11 AM
Couldn't same be said for us from 1919 thru 2005?

Excuse me, sir, but are you lost?

TornLabrum
07-21-2009, 11:12 AM
Totally Biased, Completely Unobjective, Utterly Petty, WSI...
Now fortified with churros.

october23sp
07-21-2009, 11:25 AM
It's been said before but I'll put it in my own words. I'm not saying on performance on the field. The Twins are, in fact, perpetual losers. Anyone who thinks Carlos Gomez is "a winner" is also a perpetual loser.:redneck:tongue:

SoxSpeed22
07-21-2009, 11:32 AM
5EQc5zpqEeo

The Twins have done a great job with their scouting and coaching to stay competitive. That being said, this is a White Sox board so the bias has to be there.

kobo
07-21-2009, 11:43 AM
If the Twins are perpetual losers then so are the Braves.

gobears1987
07-21-2009, 11:45 AM
The Twins are crappy.They are perpetual losers.

white sox bill
07-21-2009, 11:55 AM
Excuse me, sir, but are you lost?
I'm sorry I thought I was on WSI....:bandance:

JB98
07-21-2009, 12:10 PM
The Twins are crappy. They are perpetual losers.

I'm not willing to entertain any arguments to the contrary. **** 'em.

areilly
07-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Winning in the regular season is not the same as being a winner. When the chips are down, they find a way to lose, time and time again. Game 163 last year is only one example of they way that team fails when the games matter most.

I dislike the Twins as much as anyone else, but I find it hard to put down their achievements when the Sox haven't fared much better in those situations. 2005 was awesome, yes, but let's not forget the pants-crapping of 2008, 2000, 1993, 1983, 1959, or even any of the seasons this decade where the Twins laughed their way to the finish line as the Sox self-destructed. I vote no.

areilly
07-21-2009, 12:19 PM
While they are made out to be much better than they are, the Twins are hardly losers. What I don't want to hear about how scrappy they are and how untalented they are, etc. Mauer and Moreanu will start on most teams in the league. Cuddleyer, after being injured last season, is a pretty solid player. Hell, Kubel isn't a slouch, either. They are hitting quite a bit of homers this season.

On which team would Mauer not be the starter? Or, besides the Cardinals, Morneau for that matter?

asindc
07-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Yes.

ode to veeck
07-21-2009, 12:52 PM
are they losers, no, they're easily the toughest competition in the central last 10 years

do we hate them and their poor excuse for a windbag ballpark, of course we do

Madscout
07-21-2009, 01:15 PM
They won't be **** without that ball park. God, I hate them so much.

QueerGirrl
07-21-2009, 04:24 PM
The Twins are crappy. They are perpetual losers.

I'm not willing to entertain any arguments to the contrary. **** 'em.

:thumbsup:

jdm2662
07-21-2009, 04:37 PM
On which team would Mauer not be the starter? Or, besides the Cardinals, Morneau for that matter?

Morneau probably wouldn't be starting over Ryan Howard.

Prince Fielder? Mark Texiera? Those are probably the only two others that COULD that I can think of.

Mauer, probably no one is better than him right now.

But, that's my point. They have two of the best at their position in the league. It's not like they have ALL unknown players. Hell, look at the last DUMP series. It was the Sox that was playing ping ball baseball and the Twins hitting all the home runs. The Twins bullpen and rotation, however, are not as strong as previous years. Hence, their so-so record.

DumpJerry
07-21-2009, 04:44 PM
Morneau probably wouldn't be starting over Ryan Howard.

Prince Fielder? Mark Texiera? Those are probably the only two others that COULD that I can think of.

:walnuts
Bring it.

Railsplitter
07-21-2009, 05:19 PM
Are these twins of which you speak identical or fraternal?

JB98
07-21-2009, 05:35 PM
Are these twins of which you speak identical or fraternal?

I believe we are discussing the Olsen sisters in this thread. :D:

Hitmen77
07-22-2009, 09:58 AM
If we're going to call any team (other than the hapless Royals) in the AL Central "perpetual losers", it should be the Indians.

IMO, the Indians are the ones who are, year after year, overrated, picked for 1st and often in recent years turn out to be huge flops.

At least the Twins won the WS in 87 and 91. The Indians haven't won in 61 years (though they did make it to the WS in 95 and 97). Those who think the Twins are good at choking in the playoffs should re-watch the 2007 ALCS.

Also, I think the Indians have by far the most obnoxious fans in the AL Central.

I have to grudgingly respect how the Twins can develop minor league talent and how their players are actually good at fundamentals like bunting.....that being said I'm really interested in seeing how the Twinkies fare next year when they can't rely on their astroturf hits and adjustable blowers(:redneck) to give them a ridiculous home field advantage.

DumpJerry
07-22-2009, 10:07 AM
Also, I think the Indians have by far the most obnoxious fans in the AL Central.
Sounds like you have not been to too many games at Comiskey when the Kitties are in town. Nothing but Eight Mile Road gang banger wanna be's and Red Wing hockey fans.....

voodoochile
07-22-2009, 10:23 AM
If we're going to call any team (other than the hapless Royals) in the AL Central "perpetual losers", it should be the Indians.

IMO, the Indians are the ones who are, year after year, overrated, picked for 1st and often in recent years turn out to be huge flops.

At least the Twins won the WS in 87 and 91. The Indians haven't won in 61 years (though they did make it to the WS in 95 and 97). Those who think the Twins are good at choking in the playoffs should re-watch the 2007 ALCS.

Also, I think the Indians have by far the most obnoxious fans in the AL Central.

I have to grudgingly respect how the Twins can develop minor league talent and how their players are actually good at fundamentals like bunting.....that being said I'm really interested in seeing how the Twinkies fare next year when they can't rely on their astroturf hits and adjustable blowers(:redneck) to give them a ridiculous home field advantage.

I agree. The toons are ALSO crappy perpetual losers, but they're from Cleveland some things go without saying...:tongue:

spawn
07-22-2009, 10:34 AM
If we're going to call any team (other than the hapless Royals) in the AL Central "perpetual losers", it should be the Indians.

IMO, the Indians are the ones who are, year after year, overrated, picked for 1st and often in recent years turn out to be huge flops.

At least the Twins won the WS in 87 and 91. The Indians haven't won in 61 years (though they did make it to the WS in 95 and 97). Those who think the Twins are good at choking in the playoffs should re-watch the 2007 ALCS.

Also, I think the Indians have by far the most obnoxious fans in the AL Central.


That's like saying "water is wet".:wink:

FielderJones
07-22-2009, 01:54 PM
let's not forget the pants-crapping of 2008, 2000, 1993, 1983, 1959, or even any of the seasons this decade where the Twins laughed their way to the finish line as the Sox self-destructed.

Which of those seasons this decade did they make it to the World Series? I forget ...

Domeshot17
07-22-2009, 02:03 PM
This must be WSI:

Yesterday- When the Sox win the central with sub 90 wins and exit in the first round, the season is a success. All fans should really want is to compete for a chance at the playoffs

Today- Who cares that the Twins are pretty much always competing, they are Losers because they lose in round 1!

voodoochile
07-22-2009, 02:12 PM
This must be WSI:

Yesterday- When the Sox win the central with sub 90 wins and exit in the first round, the season is a success. All fans should really want is to compete for a chance at the playoffs

Today- Who cares that the Twins are pretty much always competing, they are Losers because they lose in round 1!


No, that's just part of the reason, when they manage to get there of course...

Domeshot17
07-22-2009, 02:16 PM
No, that's just part of the reason, when they manage to get there of course...

Since Kenny Williams has taken over, the Twins have been to the playoffs more than the Sox. I really wouldn't knock their track record. Yes, they have not won a world series since Kirby, you can knock them there. However, I think we should worry more about making the playoffs and getting out of round 1 ourselves.

Edit: I mean don't get me wrong, I hate the Twins more than I hate the Cubs, I wish I could push the bottom to blow up the baggy dome, but they are still a stable team. Its kind of like if I had my choice, I would rather have Gardenhire manage the Sox then Ozzie.

voodoochile
07-22-2009, 02:17 PM
Since Kenny Williams has taken over, the Twins have been to the playoffs more than the Sox. I really wouldn't knock their track record. Yes, they have not won a world series since Kirby, you can knock them there. However, I think we should worry more about making the playoffs and getting out of round 1 ourselves.

Okay then, thanks for sharing.

Domeshot17
07-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Okay then, thanks for sharing.

You're Welcome

DumpJerry
07-22-2009, 03:39 PM
Wow. I might have to re-think my position.

With two outs in the bottom of the Second right now, it is 12-1 A's over the Twins.

spawn
07-22-2009, 03:40 PM
Wow. I might have to re-think my position.

With two outs in the bottom of the Second right now, it is 12-1 A's over the Twins.
The A's sent 14 men to the plate in the 2nd. Wow.

DumpJerry
07-22-2009, 03:42 PM
I guess they miss Joe Crede.

DumpJerry
07-22-2009, 05:06 PM
A's picked up an insurance run in the 7th. 16-1.

Funny thing is that the Twins scored first in the First on a Morneau HR. I guess they thought they had it in the bag.

voodoochile
07-22-2009, 05:17 PM
A's picked up an insurance run in the 7th. 16-1.

Funny thing is that the Twins scored first in the First on a Morneau HR. I guess they thought they had it in the bag.

That's the problem, they left the bag(gie) in Minnesota so there was nothing to stuff the game into...

SBSoxFan
07-23-2009, 10:49 PM
You also can't take away their 2 WS championships in 87 and 91.

Right place, right time. One year either way in each case, the Twin's lose those World Series because they don't have the home field advantage.