PDA

View Full Version : Carl Pohlad looking at contraction again?


Fenway
01-12-2006, 09:40 AM
Trouble in Twinkies land again.

Keep in mind the union agreed to giving MLB right to contract after 2006.

Twins make pitch in court to leave Dome

The judge says he will rule in two weeks on the team's obligations to play in the stadium after 2006.

http://www.startribune.com/509/story/172177.html

voodoochile
01-12-2006, 09:47 AM
Trouble in Twinkies land again.

Keep in mind the union agreed to giving MLB right to contract after 2006.

Twins make pitch in court to leave Dome

The judge says he will rule in two weeks on the team's obligations to play in the stadium after 2006.

http://www.startribune.com/509/story/172177.html

They won't contract it, they will move it first.

MiamiSpartan
01-12-2006, 09:49 AM
Geez, between the Marlins, Twins and Nationals, there could be a lot of movement coming up...

Fenway
01-12-2006, 09:54 AM
They won't contract it, they will move it first.

I dunno. MLB contracts the Marlins and Twins and moves the A's to Vegas would solve a lot of their problems. Would you trust Pohlad and Selig?

1951Campbell
01-12-2006, 10:29 AM
Marlins, Twins, Devil Rays...contract some teams before MLB becomes under-talented, like the NHL.

Baby Fisk
01-12-2006, 10:30 AM
Marlins, Twins, Devil Rays...contract some teams before MLB becomes under-talented, like the NHL.
Are you nuts?! We still need a hockey team for Hamilton! :cool:

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2006, 10:40 AM
Keep in mind the union agreed to giving MLB right to contract after 2006.Popular misconception. Here's the actual language:
(2) Covenants of the Clubs and the Association
In the event the Clubs vote to contract effective for the 2007
championship season:
(a) The Association, on behalf of itself and the Major League
Players, shall not bring in any forum any contractual or NLRA
challenge to the decision to contract (but not the effects thereof).
Moreover, the Association shall not pursue, encourage, finance or
assist any antitrust challenge to such decision to contract; and
(b) The Clubs shall not contend, in any litigation related to a
decision to contract effective for the 2007 championship season,
that the decision to contract is a mandatory subject of bargaining
under the NLRA. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, the
Association may intervene in any such litigation to enforce the
covenant set out in this subparagraph (b).In essence, the MLBPA cannot file an antitrust suit to stop any contraction effort, but its effect (loss of jobs) is explicitly stated as being subject to collective bargaining. MLB cannot act unilaterally.

Any decision to contract effective for the 2007 championship
season shall be subject to effects bargaining and such bargaining
shall commence no later than July 15, 2006.

Fenway
01-12-2006, 10:42 AM
Popular misconception. Here's the actual language:
In essence, the MLBPA cannot file an antitrust suit to stop any contraction effort, but its effect (loss of jobs) is explicitly stated as being subject to collective bargaining. MLB cannot act unilaterally.

expand rosters to 27 for the remaing 28 teams. No jobs lost

TDog
01-12-2006, 10:59 AM
I dunno. MLB contracts the Marlins and Twins and moves the A's to Vegas would solve a lot of their problems. Would you trust Pohlad and Selig?

Moving any team to Vegas would create a lot of problems.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2006, 11:00 AM
expand rosters to 27 for the remaing 28 teams. No jobs lostThere are other effects that can be claimed, such as an overall reduction in competition for players and a potential depressing effect on salaries. It's only limited by one's imagination.

The main point is that the MLBPA did not agree not to oppose contraction. They just agreed not to file an antitrust suit.

ma-gaga
01-12-2006, 11:08 AM
I'll be shocked if "contraction" occurs. This is a leverage ploy since the relocation threat didn't work the first, or second or third time.

If MLB pushes "C" up to the point of making a public offer to buy out the Twins, I'm absolutely sure that Congress will step in and force MLB to show their 'books' to prove that their are financially unstable. The last time that happened, contraction disappeared immediately.

MLB is just too good of a money maker right now. This is just Pohlad Inc., again trying to get more.

:angry:

White Sox Randy
01-12-2006, 11:39 AM
I hear MLB is thinking of putting a major league franchhise on the north side of Chicago.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2006, 12:17 PM
I'll be shocked if "contraction" occurs. This is a leverage ploy since the relocation threat didn't work the first, or second or third time.

If MLB pushes "C" up to the point of making a public offer to buy out the Twins, I'm absolutely sure that Congress will step in and force MLB to show their 'books' to prove that their are financially unstable. The last time that happened, contraction disappeared immediately.

MLB is just too good of a money maker right now. This is just Pohlad Inc., again trying to get more.

:angry:That's my take on it, too. Contraction makes no economic sense. Visiting teams get only a small portion of the gate receipts, so when the Sox play in the baggie-dome, Jerry Reinsdorf couldn't care less how many people are in the seats, and he certainly has no incentive to pay Pohlad millions of dollars.

It's no accident that the teams mentioned for contraction are always teams that just happen to be trying to get new stadium deals.

wdelaney72
01-12-2006, 01:02 PM
That's my take on it, too. Contraction makes no economic sense. Visiting teams get only a small portion of the gate receipts, so when the Sox play in the baggie-dome, Jerry Reinsdorf couldn't care less how many people are in the seats, and he certainly has no incentive to pay Pohlad millions of dollars.

It's no accident that the teams mentioned for contraction are always teams that just happen to be trying to get new stadium deals.

Exactly. And one team that will not contracted, is a team owned collectively owned by MLB. The owners would be in fact throwing their own money away, which we all know will never happen.

Fenway
01-12-2006, 01:09 PM
If the Twins get out of their lease after 2006, where exactly to they plan to play? Mike Veeck's stadium in St. Paul?

The new stadium for the Twins seems to be at a dead end.

Twins stadium lunch ends on glum note (http://www.startribune.com/509/story/177078.html)
January 11, 2006 9:31 PM
Officials from the Twins and Hennepin County emerged from an hour-long luncheon at the governor's mansion saying the same obstacles that had thwarted the proposal last year remained. "Nothing was decided today at all," said Jerry Bell, the Twins' lead negotiator for the stadium plan.

http://www.startribune.com/media/2006/01/11/1stadium011206.standalone.jpg

SouthSide_HitMen
01-12-2006, 01:39 PM
"Ask not what your Minnesota Twins can do for you
Ask what you can do for your Minnesota Twins."

Carl Pohlad spokesman Smithers addresses Minnesota taxpayers.

ma-gaga
01-12-2006, 01:52 PM
If the Twins get out of their lease after 2006, where exactly to they plan to play? Mike Veeck's stadium in St. Paul?


That's just it. There is no viable place for them to go. This is a threat. Some more "We need a new stadium or else" publicity.

Maybe in 5 years, Vegas will be big enough to support a team. Or San Antonio. Or Portland. Or the "Triad" area. Or Montreal. Or back to Washington DC if the Nat's deal falls thru and they move elsewhere. Or Miami. Or Mexico City. or... I dunno. Philly. There's just not 'enough' population density/disposable income available which is greater than the Twin Cities area.

New York is the only real economical alternative, and I doubt either NY team wants to split their share of the pie, nor do I see MLB taking the PR hit relocating a midwest team into NY.

They should move a third team into NY. Just not the Twins. One of the Florida teams should go first.

Anyways. This is a threat. And unfortunately for the Twins, people here om Minny are getting sick and tired of hearing about it. Even the diehard 'pro-stadia' people...

Lip Man 1
01-12-2006, 03:50 PM
The shame of this is that Pohland, who according to Forbes, is one of the richest men on the planet with assets worth over 2.5 Billion (that's right with a B) can build the stadium himself lock, stock and barrell with practically his pocket change.

Typical rich owner who thinks the peons and surfs owe him something.

Lip

Daver
01-12-2006, 03:58 PM
That's just it. There is no viable place for them to go. This is a threat. Some more "We need a new stadium or else" publicity.

Maybe in 5 years, Vegas will be big enough to support a team. Or San Antonio. Or Portland. Or the "Triad" area. Or Montreal. Or back to Washington DC if the Nat's deal falls thru and they move elsewhere. Or Miami. Or Mexico City. or... I dunno. Philly. There's just not 'enough' population density/disposable income available which is greater than the Twin Cities area.

New York is the only real economical alternative, and I doubt either NY team wants to split their share of the pie, nor do I see MLB taking the PR hit relocating a midwest team into NY.

They should move a third team into NY. Just not the Twins. One of the Florida teams should go first.

Anyways. This is a threat. And unfortunately for the Twins, people here om Minny are getting sick and tired of hearing about it. Even the diehard 'pro-stadia' people...

Las Vegas is big enough to support a major professional sports team, but I doubt MLB would ever consider putting a team there.

zach23
01-12-2006, 03:58 PM
Typical rich owner who thinks the peons and surfs owe him something.

Lip

:dollarbill:
"Hey, I resemble that remark."

Daver
01-12-2006, 04:05 PM
:dollarbill:
"Hey, I resemble that remark."


The United Center was built with private funding.

FarWestChicago
01-12-2006, 04:13 PM
The United Center was built with private funding.Well that certainly ruins a perfectly good rant. :redneck

munchman33
01-12-2006, 05:12 PM
The shame of this is that Pohland, who according to Forbes, is one of the richest men on the planet with assets worth over 2.5 Billion (that's right with a B) can build the stadium himself lock, stock and barrell with practically his pocket change.

Typical rich owner who thinks the peons and surfs owe him something.

Lip

Building your own stadium is viable in bigger cities and places where attendance isn't fickle. But to do so in Minnesota would cost more than its worth, because year in and year out it's a crap shoot whether or not the fans will show up.

Fenway
01-12-2006, 05:21 PM
Building your own stadium is viable in bigger cities and places where attendance isn't fickle. But to do so in Minnesota would cost more than its worth, because year in and year out it's a crap shoot whether or not the fans will show up.

I believe that Minneapolis would do well with an outdoor stadium.

The Twins suffer the same problem the Expos had. Nobody in a Northern climate wants to be indoors in the summertime.

DumpJerry
01-12-2006, 06:15 PM
Las Vegas is big enough to support a major professional sports team, but I doubt MLB would ever consider putting a team there.
Pete Rose could be the GM.

One comment about the other poster's suggestion of the Twinks playing at Mike Veeck's field in St. Paul where the St. Paul Saints play: There was a different baseball park on the same spot of ground a little over 100 years ago which was replaced by the current park. A baseball team played there as its home field before moving south to another city and a new name. That team's name today? The Chicago White Sox.:D:

I'm not sure if I want the Twinks playing on such hallowed ground (anyway, it is wayyyy too small for a MLB team).

DumpJerry
01-12-2006, 06:21 PM
I believe that Minneapolis would do well with an outdoor stadium.

The Twins suffer the same problem the Expos had. Nobody in a Northern climate wants to be indoors in the summertime.
I spent 7 years up there in college and post college life (1980-87). One of my best friends from Chicago moved there to take a job in '84. During high school, he and I spent more time at Comiskey than with our families during the summers.

One weekend in May or June, the Sox were scheduled for a series which included a day game on Saturday. Bill and I made plans to go to the Saturday matinee. The morning of the game brought us 85+ temps and no clouds. I called up Bill and we agreed to not go to the game because it was too nice to be inside. If the Twinks were still at the old (open air) Met Stadium, we would have been first in line for tickets that day.

Indoor baseball sucks. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Daver
01-12-2006, 06:39 PM
Well that certainly ruins a perfectly good rant. :redneck

They usually don't let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

ma-gaga
01-12-2006, 06:41 PM
I believe that Minneapolis would do well with an outdoor stadium.

The Twins suffer the same problem the Expos had. Nobody in a Northern climate wants to be indoors in the summertime.

That and for years all that's come out of the Twins front office is "how crappy the Metrodome is".

Guess what? That worked a little too well. Now, everyone hates going to the place.

Fenway
01-12-2006, 06:51 PM
I went to a game in Montreal once and from the time we left the room at the hotel until we got back we never were outside once.

Metro was in the basement of hotel, out to the Pix IX station and there was a tunnel to the stadium entrance.

Ironic thing about the Metrodome, it was built to cater to the Vikings yet fans there wanted to stay outside even in December.

munchman33
01-12-2006, 08:25 PM
That and for years all that's come out of the Twins front office is "how crappy the Metrodome is".

Guess what? That worked a little too well. Now, everyone hates going to the place.

I don't buy that for a second. People don't like the Metrodome because it sucks.

But I don't buy that fans will come out to a new ballpark either. Minnesota shouldn't have a team.

zach23
01-12-2006, 10:47 PM
The United Center was built with private funding.

Well, I wasn't really giving Dollar Bill grief about the United Center so much as I was about his true greedy ways. The man probably has more money than some small countries and has run a once great franchise into the ground.

PKalltheway
01-12-2006, 11:49 PM
But I don't buy that fans will come out to a new ballpark either. Minnesota shouldn't have a team.

How come Twins fans don't show up for ballgames? They (with the possible exception of last year:D:) don't necessarily stink.

munchman33
01-13-2006, 12:11 AM
How come Twins fans don't show up for ballgames? They (with the possible exception of last year:D:) don't necessarily stink.

Because the area isn't large enough to support a baseball team. Or at least there aren't enough people in the area to develop a die hard fan base large enough to warrant a major league team.

Baby Fisk
01-13-2006, 12:14 AM
I don't buy that for a second. People don't like the Metrodome because it sucks.

But I don't buy that fans will come out to a new ballpark either. Minnesota shouldn't have a team.
Problem is, if the Twins were to re-locate, St. Paul-Minneapolis would become the front runner for a new team. MLB logic is ironic.

C-Dawg
01-13-2006, 06:55 AM
Heard from a Twins fan at the Metrodome: "This stadium is nice in April. In the summer - well, being indoors cuts down on the bugs. Other than that it sucks."

ma-gaga
01-13-2006, 09:23 AM
I don't buy that for a second. People don't like the Metrodome because it sucks.

But I don't buy that fans will come out to a new ballpark either. Minnesota shouldn't have a team.
...
Because the area isn't large enough to support a baseball team. Or at least there aren't enough people in the area to develop a die hard fan base large enough to warrant a major league team.


Nice logic. I've seen that the Twin Cities is the... 17th largest market (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml) in the country. So if you want to say that Cleveland, Sad Diego, St.Louis, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, KC, Milwaukee don't deserve a team either fine.

You are simply wrong.

wdelaney72
01-13-2006, 02:23 PM
The shame of this is that Pohland, who according to Forbes, is one of the richest men on the planet with assets worth over 2.5 Billion (that's right with a B) can build the stadium himself lock, stock and barrell with practically his pocket change.

Typical rich owner who thinks the peons and surfs owe him something.

Lip

While this is true, Pohlad sees public funding going into all of these other stadiums, why should he have to foot the bill. Unfortunately, a bad precedent was set and all of these owners are milking it while they can.

DumpJerry
01-13-2006, 03:22 PM
Nice logic. I've seen that the Twin Cities is the... 17th largest market (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml) in the country. So if you want to say that Cleveland, Sad Diego, St.Louis, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, KC, Milwaukee don't deserve a team either fine.

You are simply wrong.
The population of the Twin Cities is over 1,000,000 people. Minnesota is around 4,000,000. That is plenty of people to support a baseball team. The Twins have had good years of attendance. A lot depends on what they are putting on the field. If the Twins are blowing chunks in September, they will not sell because the Vikings rule the pro sports up there and will be the only thing on the radar screen. These are not Cub fans we're talking about, after all.

munchman33
01-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Nice logic. I've seen that the Twin Cities is the... 17th largest market (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml) in the country. So if you want to say that Cleveland, Sad Diego, St.Louis, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, KC, Milwaukee don't deserve a team either fine.

You are simply wrong.

Yeah, but you have to take population income into consideration.

And history. Nobody comes. The Twins lose. Nobody comes. The Twins win. A few people come. But not nearly as many as there should be.

I'd wait on Tampa because we don't know how the city will react to winning baseball.

Minneapolis has proven it doesn't deserve a major league team. I understand your bias. But the writing is on the wall. All of the facts back me, my friend. You are simply wrong.

pmck003
01-13-2006, 04:24 PM
Yeah, but you have to take population income into consideration.

And history. Nobody comes. The Twins lose. Nobody comes. The Twins win. A few people come. But not nearly as many as there should be.

I'd wait on Tampa because we don't know how the city will react to winning baseball.

Minneapolis has proven it doesn't deserve a major league team. I understand your bias. But the writing is on the wall. All of the facts back me, my friend. You are simply wrong.

Minneapolis has the 14th highest average income rate in the U.S per http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm
I have no idea what facts you are talking about. Who wants to sit inside (for many after doing so all winter) to watch a team with little realistic chance of contending anytime soon and give Pohlad more money? The Twins still drew more than Cleveland and seven other teams this last year.
The Twins need a new stadium, but I don't blame anyone for voting against public funding as long as there is a greedy, bitter Pohlad as owner.

munchman33
01-13-2006, 05:00 PM
Minneapolis has the 14th highest average income rate in the U.S per http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm
I have no idea what facts you are talking about. Who wants to sit inside (for many after doing so all winter) to watch a team with little realistic chance of contending anytime soon and give Pohlad more money? The Twins still drew more than Cleveland and seven other teams this last year.
The Twins need a new stadium, but I don't blame anyone for voting against public funding as long as there is a greedy, bitter Pohlad as owner.

Little chance of winning!?

Do I need to remind you who won the division the three years before we did? The Twins were a powerhouse. And the attendance figures were abyssmal. It's obvious the area doesn't want to support the team.

Eighth from the bottom in attendance is not good if you've been winning. Maybe the first year of winning. But that was not the case.

ma-gaga
01-13-2006, 05:23 PM
nneapolis has proven it doesn't deserve a major league team. ... All of the facts back me... It's obvious the area doesn't want to support the team.

The Twins stadium/attendance situation isn't as simple as you make it.

Bad stadium, bad owner who has tried to blackmail his fanbase 4-5 times in the last 7 years. He should be grateful that he got almost 2mm last year. He's poisoned the market.

I can cite their attendance from 14 years ago. Back before the strike, and before Pohlad threatened to move/contract the team a half dozen times. But I'll let you take a look at what kind of historical attendance after a "winning" season the Twins have.

History.... pfft.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-13-2006, 05:37 PM
The Twins stadium/attendance situation isn't as simple as you make it.

Bad stadium, bad owner who has tried to blackmail his fanbase 4-5 times in the last 7 years. He should be grateful that he got almost 2mm last year. He's poisoned the market.

I can cite their attendance from 14 years ago. Back before the strike, and before Pohlad threatened to move/contract the team a half dozen times. But I'll let you take a look at what kind of historical attendance after a "winning" season the Twins have.

History.... pfft.

Pohlad is the Bill Wirtz of MLB and the Metrodome is the, well it is the Metrodome of MLB. I liked Olympic Stadium & the RCA Dome better. It was rumored we even had attendance issues after 1994.

There is a difference between having a market to support a MLB team and having a market to support a Carl Pohlad product in the worst stadium in North American sports. I agree 100% with ma-gaga.

Whitesox029
01-13-2006, 06:48 PM
Trouble in Twinkies land again.

I'll shed no tears. Bring the Brewers back to the AL where they belong!

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2006, 08:03 PM
Pohlad is the Bill Wirtz of MLB and the Metrodome is the, well it is the Metrodome of MLB. I liked Olympic Stadium & the RCA Dome better. It was rumored we even had attendance issues after 1994.

There is a difference between having a market to support a MLB team and having a market to support a Carl Pohlad product in the worst stadium in North American sports. I agree 100% with ma-gaga.Absolutely. How many people have you seen on this site saying they wouldn't go to games because they hated Jerry Reinsdorf? (Funny, I haven't heard that in a while for some reason.) An owner like Pohlad or Loria can really poison the fan base and it takes a lot to recover from that. And the baggie-dome is an awful place to watch baseball, but Pohlad's constantly reminding everyone of that isn't exactly good marketing strategy. You didn't hear Reinsdorf going around talking about how steep the UD was, did you?

santo=dorf
01-13-2006, 08:48 PM
I can cite their attendance from 14 years ago. Back before the strike, and before Pohlad threatened to move/contract the team a half dozen times. But I'll let you take a look at what kind of historical attendance after a "winning" season the Twins have.

History.... pfft.
Attendance rank in the AL (out of 14)
1994 11
1993 10 (this was after a 90 win season)
1992 5 (coming off a World Series)
1991 8
1990 11
1989 7 (coming off a 91 win season)
1988 1 (coming off a World Series)
1987 6
1986 13
1985 9
1984 10 (first year of Pohlad's ownership)

Are Twins fans that fair-weathered? I'm curious; do the Twins get buried by from the attention the Vikings, Gophers and maybe Wild (previously the North Stars) get? :?:

I think TB should go before Minnesota however.