Thread: Reusse: Always are Angry Twins Followers

Originally Posted by LaBombo

Don't feel too bad. You made some good points, but using mere logic to tackle a post with "love" and "Pohlads" in the same sentence is like handling anti-matter with salad tongs.

Help me out, snepps. Was this attacking an argument?

I'm probably a little bit of 1, 2, and 3, though I don't know if the word "angry" describes what I feel... Disappointment, sure.

I do think that receiving public funding obligates the owners to spend a bit more to keep the team competitive. They did that in 2010, but not so much the last two years.

I like what Terry Ryan is doing for the future with aquisitions like Meyer and May. Like Brock, I feel better aquisitions could have been made for the present that could take a 70 win team and make them an 80 win team. Even in 2009, when we had no business being in the playoffs, I was glued to the race because we were in it.

Gardy has some problems yes, though as others have said, I wasn't a fan of his long before the last two seasons.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

Chief, I'm confused...

If one wants to understand why diverting money that could (should?) otherwise go to payroll to instead fund stadium costs, it's not hard. On the other hand, if one wants to avoid the point, and pretend the Pohlads are living up to their promised contribution, it's easy to be "confused."

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Happy Trolls are just as bad as Hateful Trolls. That some people don't find blind optimism offensive, doesn't mean that pollyanneishness doesn't negatively affect many people's participation in discussion. It offends my intellect when someone brandishes their baseless happy-takes as legitimate. Just as it offends my intellect when someone tries to frame their ideological pessimism as critical analysis. That one narrative unreasonably casts Hicks as the hero and the other defiantly scripts Correia as the villain hardly matters in terms of each's repugnance.

I was going to say something akin to this. Chief was right, the real enemy of a team is apathy. But apathy isn't just a cold shoulder to the team, it's also in the form of being so committed to being this ideal of "fan" that you utterly ignore issues that can and SHOULD be criticized so as not to appear negative. Criticism, even harsh criticism, can be productive and positive. This approach, and many on this board seem to possess it, that anything critical or skeptical should be treated as a form of mutiny on their fanhood is completely absurd. But more than that, it is actually LESS helpful to our favorite team.

Our ballclub would be better, now and in the future, if it understood why their "best" free agency move is being panned rather than celebrated. The hope being that if we criticize it and detail why it was an awful baseball decision - perhaps their decision making gets better! Better baseball decisions lead to a better baseball team. Pie-in-the-sky optimism does nothing to help this team. You can lend this analogy to anything - constructive criticism can make for better people. Blind back-patting to keep up a facade of positivity is just another form of lying to someone and to yourself.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

If one wants to understand why diverting money that could (should?) otherwise go to payroll to instead fund stadium costs, it's not hard. On the other hand, if one wants to avoid the point, and pretend the Pohlads are living up to their promised contribution, it's easy to be "confused."

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it.

In essence, people believe they were sold on a bill of goods when agreeing to fund a public stadium--that the Twins are reneging on the complicit promise that 51% of revenue would be allocated to payroll, rather than some portion of that going back to paying for stadium costs. I don't know to what extent that point is true, but i think it's a legitimate concern given how payroll has decreased significantly this year.

I think it's pretty easy to see why people would be put off by a payroll that has decreased by 20 % from last year. On it's surface, that doesn't look like investment into what has been a last place team, that looks like a cost cutting. I don't mean to speak for Chief, but you are being unfairly obtuse on this point, imo.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

Help me out, snepps. Was this attacking an argument?

Simply put, one post included an insult on another member, the other didn't.

If you feel a warning wasn't justified (as opposed to receiving yet another infraction), you're welcome to bring it to the attention of an administrator.

Owners Own... Players Play and Fans Fan... Everyone is looking for the best deal and that includes the fans. I'm not going to say that Pohlad should be thanked, worshiped or anything of the like but I'm really not sure how Pohlad is different than any of the other owners in Baseball. They are running a business and they are going to take advantage of you if they can. Just like Best Buy will if they can. They will do what it takes to sell an extra hot dog even if you don't need it. As for the current state of the Twins... It went south in 2010 and the recovery is going to take a little time. Meanwhile... It's a great opportunity for Hicks, Plouffe, Mastro, Gibson, Hendriks, Worley, Correia, Pelfrey, Diamond, Deduno, DeVries, Parmelee, Dozier, Florimon and others to prove they can play major league ball and be part of the organization moving forward... and some of these players just might be worth getting excited about.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Since I can't read your mind, I remain confused by it.

I'm not as diplomatic as Pseudo, or as well spoken, but he said it well, read what he said. For the record, though, I'll repeat that IMO any "confusion" on your part is willful.

Originally Posted by cmathewson

The haters equate being negative to being critical. And somehow, if you're not critical, you're an idiot. News flash, you can be critical and still be positive. You can say Hicks has work to do on his outfield throws and still say he's an exciting player. You can pick apart his game and still say he's as good as Span right now and has much higher upside. That's the fun of being a fan. No player is perfect. All players fail two thirds of the time. But are they good enough to help the team win over the long season? If so, and you can provide good reasons why, stating them doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you smarter than the haters who paint in black and white, and mostly black.

Agreed.

But using the word "haters" to describe people with different opinions, you automatically become like them, not?

Here is my beef with the Twins (and I really do not care about the payroll and I think that the Twins are blessed to have Mauer. Imagine if he signed somewhere else as a FA, there were going to be a revolution.... ) and their mainsteam fans:

a. This team has not won a title since 1991
b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)
c. Twins' fans think that this was "success" and the press propagated that like crazy. Even if it was better than total suckage, it was not winning World Series.
d. Because of that perceived "success" the press and the fans did not care to see fatal flawsin the way this team has been build and managed and the general cronyism that has been going on.
e. I am convinced that the Twins will not win a World Series again unless they make radical philosophical and personnel changes.

And that was before the last 2 seasons.

Now there are many more voices out there who actually start thinking that, gee, something is wrong being a doormat again. And, unlike Mr Reuss who thinks that 2011 was fully due to injuries and 2012 because of "bad pitching" (Gee, did the GM and the manager assemble that "bad pitching"?) they want their team to change so they can win (again - or at least not be a doormat.)

Thus the perceived anger.

I don't get the whole "hater" thing. If someone does not like Obama's healthcare policies or Bush's wars and publicly speaks about it, is he/she an American hater?

Nope.

We are all Twins' fans. Some of us are just sicker than other of what the people who are running our favorite team have done to it. That's all.

And I hope that the Twins' win it all this season. Really do. That is hope. But my gut says that there need to be changes for that to happen... hasn't happened in 21 going to 22 years now.

And, frakly, this is not "negative". It is critical (and actually positive.) If you are not at a desired state and you are not critical about the desired state you will never improve... And improvement is a good thing I think

Win Twins!

Originally Posted by USAFChief

I'm not as diplomatic as Pseudo, or as well spoken, but he said it well, read what he said. For the record, though, I'll repeat that IMO any "confusion" on your part is willful.

I did read what he said Chief. And your right, he IS more diplomatic. Bu I'm not the n being obtuse here. We can disagree and still understand each others point of view, and even respect it. I have very carefully considered your views, Chief. And Pseudo's too.

1. You think you were sold a bill of goods. Most on here agree. I get it that Ryan said he intended to bring in more than one quality starter. The Twins haven't broken a promise. Ryan simply fell short of his and our expectations. They never promised you they'd outbid for players on the free market because of Target Field. What they DID promise was that the stadium would make it easier to retain their own players. What they DID promise is that they'd invest more in their own system. They have NOT broken any promises. They just haven't lived up to your hopes and expectations.

2. TheTwins, and Jim Pohlad specifically, has said the team will spend about half of revenues on payroll, on average. No one promised to spend 51% of revenus each and every year. You may think they owe you an accounting of this. They don't. Payroll dollars have NOT been diverted to pay stadium costs That's a false statement. You can be miffed, but you're not entitled to a single thing you're not getting just because it's what you want and expect.

I'm not the one who's obtuse here, my brothers. Hell, if I go to the BMW dealer, I expect him to sell me a damn car. If he oversells a bit, I'm not going to be morally outraged. I get it. Ryan oversold. It was not smart. And I get that it looks real bad that payroll is down 20%. I get the outrage. I'm not defending that decision. But I'm not outraged. They have been beefing up the farm system for awhile. They just signed two of the top 25 international prospects. They said they were going to buid from within for the most part, and we're beginning to see the goods. Maybe, when the time comes to extend a few of these guys, they'll open up the coffers and spend MORE than 51% for awhile. You are welcome to conclude, right here and now, that this will never happen, or that Pohlad's a lying, cheating SOB, or whatever. Knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Agreed.

But using the word "haters" to describe people with different opinions, you automatically become like them, not?

Here is my beef with the Twins (and I really do not care about the payroll and I think that the Twins are blessed to have Mauer. Imagine if he signed somewhere else as a FA, there were going to be a revolution.... ) and their mainsteam fans:

a. This team has not won a title since 1991
b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)
c. Twins' fans think that this was "success" and the press propagated that like crazy. Even if it was better than total suckage, it was not winning World Series.
d. Because of that perceived "success" the press and the fans did not care to see fatal flawsin the way this team has been build and managed and the general cronyism that has been going on.
e. I am convinced that the Twins will not win a World Series again unless they make radical philosophical and personnel changes.

And that was before the last 2 seasons.

Now there are many more voices out there who actually start thinking that, gee, something is wrong being a doormat again. And, unlike Mr Reuss who thinks that 2011 was fully due to injuries and 2012 because of "bad pitching" (Gee, did the GM and the manager assemble that "bad pitching"?) they want their team to change so they can win (again - or at least not be a doormat.)

Thus the perceived anger.

I don't get the whole "hater" thing. If someone does not like Obama's healthcare policies or Bush's wars and publicly speaks about it, is he/she an American hater?

Nope.

We are all Twins' fans. Some of us are just sicker than other of what the people who are running our favorite team have done to it. That's all.

And I hope that the Twins' win it all this season. Really do. That is hope. But my gut says that there need to be changes for that to happen... hasn't happened in 21 going to 22 years now.

And, frakly, this is not "negative". It is critical (and actually positive.) If you are not at a desired state and you are not critical about the desired state you will never improve... And improvement is a good thing I think

Win Twins!

Amen. The cronyism is endemic. The owners get their profits and see no reason to change. We were led to believe Ryan just "burnt-out in September 2007 and needed immediate replacement. Coincidental was a disappointing team result and a significantly higher payroll. Sure.
The assistant is promoted and voil`a Santana is traded and Hunter waved Bu-bye. Payroll builds for "the season" (2010) with veteran players added (I guess this was management's way of thanking the fans). Then disaster. The assistant is reassigned and Ryan has recovered sufficiently to resume as GM. Wow, he gets more effective medical care than the players.
Spin, spin, spin cut deadwood, make trades (more spin--"these guys are gonna be real good" [someday]). Scrape the dumpster, raid the leper colony, cross fingers, and proudly state "we will compete", "we're going to do things 'the right way' , but we don't want to 'block' anybody". Meanwhile, we're supposed to be "good fans", cheering everybody never complaining and "trust in Terry", because the twins "know what's best" [for us].

Originally Posted by thrylos98

b. This team was horrid in the Ryan years until the 00s, when it became mediocre. (Winning divisions and then 3 and out.)

Not to pick nits, but... I'm going to pick nits.

Winnings divisions and losing in the first round of the playoffs is not mediocre. The Blue Jays were mediocre in the 2000s. Rarely really bad, rarely really good. Somewhere in the middle almost every season. That's mediocrity. Getting to the playoffs 50% of the time cannot qualify as "mediocre" by any definition of the word.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

They have NOT broken any promises. They just haven't lived up to your hopes and expectations.

Nope, still being obtuse. (Or do I need to say "obtuse to me" lest I be threatened?) Twisting reality to fit your point of view and then claiming you aren't twisting reality is, almost by definition, obtuse.

Payroll dollars have NOT been diverted to pay stadium costs

You know that how?

You are welcome to conclude, right here and now, that this will never happen, or that Pohlad's a lying, cheating SOB, or whatever. Knock yourself out.

If this was truly welcome, you wouldn't be responding to anyone be it nick, Puck, chief, psuedo, or anyone else. But you've opted to take issue with those claims instead.

Originally Posted by birdwatcher

I'm not the one who's obtuse here, my brothers. Hell, if I go to the BMW dealer, I expect him to sell me a damn car. If he oversells a bit, I'm not going to be morally outraged. I get it. Ryan oversold. It was not smart. .

Better analogy would be a Chevy dealer, that was part of Mauer's contract

As far as the Pohlads are concerned:

- I am thankful for what Jim Pohlad did after he bought the team as far as getting smart baseball minds to run the organization
- I am thankful that Jim Pohlad spent the $ it took to bring in players to win the world series (twice) - and the fans rocked the dome too...

- I have no issue with the (allegedly) "publicly" financed stadium; financed with bonds that are paid by hotel and sales taxes; so if you don't want to stay in a hotel in Hennepin county or buy anything, you are not paying for the stadium
- I have no issue with the payroll or how much they are spending (and if they are spending it for Correia/Capps/Pavano, I'd rather see them spend less)

- I had a huge issue with the contraction. And not only with Pohlad but with Ryan as well. Ryan was wagging his tail when Pohlad did that. At that point, Pohlad was worse than Red McCombs. Sell your team if you don't like it.
- I have a huge issue that the Pohlads have practically spat in the face of the franchise history (which by agreement Griffith brought with him). It was maybe because a lot was part of the Griffith family and he wanted to cut the cord, but it is horrible to have a founding franchise of the American league, with plenty of Hall of Famers, including probably the best pitcher who ever threw a pitch and there is zip recognition of the fact. It is like the Twins' materialized from outer space into MN in 1960.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Not to pick nits, but... I'm going to pick nits.

Winnings divisions and losing in the first round of the playoffs is not mediocre. The Blue Jays were mediocre in the 2000s. Rarely really bad, rarely really good. Somewhere in the middle almost every season. That's mediocrity. Getting to the playoffs 50% of the time cannot qualify as "mediocre" by any definition of the word.

Alright. Semantics

Give it another context then: B instead of A+, how about that? Works? "Mediocre" a C?
If you are fine with being a B student, you will never do what you need to do to be an A student.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

Point of clarification, did they spend their draft allotment last year? I thought they did not. Not that it mattered, I don't think. I think nothing they did would have changed had they decided to spend it, just curious about the facts, that's all. I don't think, for example, they would have taken a different player later on, that needed more money....

I think the only reason they didn't was because Mazzilli chose not to sign. (9th round pick)

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Alright. Semantics

Give it another context then: B instead of A+, how about that? Works? "Mediocre" a C?
If you are fine with being a B student, you will never do what you need to do to be an A student.

Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

I don't know that anyone is talking about CONSISTENTLY winning in the playoffs. But I (and a few others) darn well think that being competitive in the playoffs means winning some games, if not series. And my aging mind has a hard time remembering that last playoff win despite the numerous appearances in the 2000's.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Again, you seem to have this notion that you can build teams to consistently win in the playoffs. There's the big-buck teams, and then there's teams like Oakland, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and San Fran that seem to compete over the last decade or so, and really only St. Louis and San Fran have demonstrably better playoff success than the Twins. That's two teams you're reserving for your "A" score. There's nothing mediocre about five or six divisional titles in a period of ten or twelve years. There's like only five teams that have had that success without absurd payrolls.

Agreed. That's why there is a bell curve. Few A's, some Bs a bunch of Cs.