There's a storm brewing in Minneapolis as the collective fears of the Minnesota Twins fanbase are already latching onto the Doomsday Scenario: Joe Mauer in Pinstripes in 2011.
Joe Mauer is the best catcher in the game and that's not up for debate.
The debate? That's the conversation that rages over what the Twins will have to do to extend Mauer long term and is it really worth it.
It sounds crazy right? Most fans will argue that Joe Mauer is worth a large long term extension and that it is a fact not an opinion. He's the hometown son made good. The best catcher in the game and one of the best players in the game regardless of position.
But there are paranoid fans wondering and whispering..."what it's going to take" to ink Mauer to a long term deal. Can the Twins really afford to give him what he is worth? What will it do the roster construction of the team if a large portion of the payroll is tied up between two men: Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau.
Can the Twins survive that kind of contract? Can they survive a career ending injury to Mauer if they do give him a long term deal? Those kinds of contracts to frugal franchises can be anchors wrapped around the neck if they go bad.
So what do the Twins do? Faced with the backlash of seeing Joe Mauer returning to Target Field wearing the accursed Yankee gear how can they do anything but re-sign Mauer.
But for Mauer what does he do? Does he leave tens of millions on the table and re-sign with the Twins with an offer that leaves the Twins competitive? Does he take the best offer he can and sign with the Yankees knowing that they can absorb the contract with the greatest of ease and still be competitive?
What's best for him? And what's best for the Twins?
I can't answer those queries, but I can posit them for the Twins fanbase and for Joe Mauer. Maybe they'll have the answers.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
It's been a long time, but I think I will get back to posting from time to time
One of the things that has really interested me when it comes to sports is the publicly financed ballpark issue. Many of the professional stadiums are either built with public funds or heavily renovated with public financing.
This comes on the heels of the news that the Florida Marlins stadium proposal failed.
The factoid that intrigues me the most is many owners say that they need a new ballpark to remain competitive. They need a new ballpark to keep payroll the same or increase it. But no city ever gets that promise in writing and I wonder if the promise could even be enforceable in court. It's even more appropriate when we look at this debacle in South Florida.
The Florida Marlins state they desperately need a new stadium. They cite their poor attendance figures, while ignoring the fact that the team is run by the ultimate miser, Mr. Jeffrey Loria. They also ignore the fact that South Florida doesn't really care all that much about baseball. They have finished in the bottom three for attendance almost every season save for 1997 when Wayne Huizenga spent boatloads to buy a title and then promptly disbanded the team.
They finished 15 out of 16 teams in the NL for attendance the year they won the World Series. South Florida is hot, muggy and rains frequently. Plus it's Miami and people have better things to do than attend baseball games. Even if you got the Miami residents a roof to protect them from the elements, I don't know if they'd come. And the best part is the Marlins play at least 9-10 games a season against the Mets and you would think with the huge NY ex-pats population down there, they'd increase the attendance figures drastically. The one game against the Mets that broke 30k was the home opener.
The Marlins fanbase is small but loyal. But I don't think a significantly larger sum of persons will attend games if they build a new stadium. Even if the cash-strapped area/county/city doles out a dime, it will be a dime too much. The Marlins owner can afford to build his own stadium, he just doesn't want to.
You could see the conversation going something like this:
Owner: We promise to spend money and field a competent team.
City: We build you a stadium you can afford yourself.
Owner: yes, but I'll spend money, ignore the fact that I never have before.
City: Can we get that promise in writing?
Owner: No.
City: So why else should we build you a stadium that is even partially financed by the city?
Owner: OMG BASEBALL
City: Every dollar we give you for the stadium you'll just pocket for yourselves. You won't improve the team much, and even if the team just needs to spend 30 million to field a very good team, you wouldn't do it. No deal.
Owner: But baseball?
City: Dude, this is Miami. We'll go to the club. Move your team to Portland.
This comes on the heels of the news that the Florida Marlins stadium proposal failed.
The factoid that intrigues me the most is many owners say that they need a new ballpark to remain competitive. They need a new ballpark to keep payroll the same or increase it. But no city ever gets that promise in writing and I wonder if the promise could even be enforceable in court. It's even more appropriate when we look at this debacle in South Florida.
The Florida Marlins state they desperately need a new stadium. They cite their poor attendance figures, while ignoring the fact that the team is run by the ultimate miser, Mr. Jeffrey Loria. They also ignore the fact that South Florida doesn't really care all that much about baseball. They have finished in the bottom three for attendance almost every season save for 1997 when Wayne Huizenga spent boatloads to buy a title and then promptly disbanded the team.
They finished 15 out of 16 teams in the NL for attendance the year they won the World Series. South Florida is hot, muggy and rains frequently. Plus it's Miami and people have better things to do than attend baseball games. Even if you got the Miami residents a roof to protect them from the elements, I don't know if they'd come. And the best part is the Marlins play at least 9-10 games a season against the Mets and you would think with the huge NY ex-pats population down there, they'd increase the attendance figures drastically. The one game against the Mets that broke 30k was the home opener.
The Marlins fanbase is small but loyal. But I don't think a significantly larger sum of persons will attend games if they build a new stadium. Even if the cash-strapped area/county/city doles out a dime, it will be a dime too much. The Marlins owner can afford to build his own stadium, he just doesn't want to.
You could see the conversation going something like this:
Owner: We promise to spend money and field a competent team.
City: We build you a stadium you can afford yourself.
Owner: yes, but I'll spend money, ignore the fact that I never have before.
City: Can we get that promise in writing?
Owner: No.
City: So why else should we build you a stadium that is even partially financed by the city?
Owner: OMG BASEBALL
City: Every dollar we give you for the stadium you'll just pocket for yourselves. You won't improve the team much, and even if the team just needs to spend 30 million to field a very good team, you wouldn't do it. No deal.
Owner: But baseball?
City: Dude, this is Miami. We'll go to the club. Move your team to Portland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)