Save the Minnesota Twins.com - Articles - Great Editorial From a Twins Fan

This editorial was sent to me unsigned. It is written from the view point of the Twins, but it is not the official word of the Twins. Hope you like it. It is very well written.

To start off, it's been suggested that Mr. Pohlad is a billionnaire and any public funds towards a new ballpark would amount to nothing more than a bailout of the rich. This may be nothing more than one's own perception, but we see the necessity of public funds as a means of preserving Major League Baseball in the Twins Cities. After all, it was Carl Pohlad who rescued the team in 1984 when he bought the franchise from the Griffith family; it was Carl Pohlad who put the people in place to deliver two World Championships to the fans of the upper Midwest. In other words: it was Mr. Pohlad's private money that led directly to two tremendous sources of joy for all of the baseball enthusiasts of the Upper Midwest.

It's also been said that despite his economic status, Mr. Pohlad is "too cheap" to absorb the entire cost of a new ballpark. Other than the San Francisco Giant's new stadium, name one other ballpark that was built entirely with private monies. The Giants have something like 10-15 partners each ponying up about 20 million dollars apiece. The Target Center was built privately and we're all aware of what happened there -- the owners could not sustain the payment schedule and the city and state were forced to step in while the Wolves were on the endangered list.

Still others have suggested that the players, with their "outlandish" salaries, should contribute to, or completely finance, the construction of a new ballpark as they'd be the primary beneficiaries of the new environs. Quite honestly, this one is so unrealistic it merits no discussion. I'm not aware of any other industry where the workers finance where they work and I doubt seriously that this one's going to be an exception to that rule.

If the legislature comes up with 1.) a reasonable source of money, and 2.) a legitimate plan for success, Mr. Pohlad's contribution will be considerable. At this point Mr. Pohlad has publicly pledged $111 million dollars to the new ballpark project but we've still not yet seen anything satisfactory for numbers 1 and 2 above. However, it's safe to say that he alone will not foot the bill. In fact, it's silly and ill-informed to even suggest that he do so for the following reason: it is not reality-based given the context of the existing professional sports environment.

The current sports landscape is such that team owners possess the leverage as communities vie for their presence. Perhaps that's the luxury that comes to those who assume the risk and invest in sport organizations. Communities constantly prostitute themselves in order to attract franchises (see the city of St. Louis and what they gave away to lure an average football team away from L.A.). The fact is, if an owner can't succeed financially in city A, eventually, lucrative offers will trickle in from cities B and C from which the owner may choose.

We are not saying that this reality is "right" or "wrong," (we believe that that's a moral debate for politicians and citizens to decide for themselves) but it is what is, and we will deal with it as such, until such a time as that reality changes. We did not create the current environment, but we respect it. What other choice do we have?

With this in mind, think back to Mr. Pohlad's original proposal last fall where he offered to give to the state 49% of the value of the Twins, while at the same time guaranteeing the state's portion of any and all operating losses. The state could have kept its 49% as an investment or sold it off in shares, whatever they wanted. We believe that this offer was not only fair, it was unprecedented and if it had been approved, it may have done wonders towards affecting serious change in the above-mentioned landscape. It was an example of one owner generously offering to "give something back" in an era when others simply look to "take."

We did not want the resulting acrimony, mud-slinging, or the ill-perceived "coercion" and quite frankly, we're surprised and frustrated that we find ourselves in this current situation. We've been at this for more than three years and we are tired and saddened that this process has stagnated.

It's also been suggested that Mr. Pohlad is holding the state hostage which again, is not how we view it. The only degree to which we are holding anyone hostage is for folks (fans and politician alike) to decide for themselves if professional baseball (in fact all professional sports for that matter) is important to them or not. Does the existence of professional sports franchises affect peoples lives one way or the other? If the answer is no, well, then there's no reason for continued debate here in this town and we'll adjust accordingly.

If the answer is yes, however, then the Twins have an obligation to provide the best quality product that we can, and with our current revenue situation (100 million in losses since 1984) that's simply not very good. Our lease arrangement with the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (MSFC) is not favorable. In terms of where our revenues rank against our 27 brothers in Baseball the situation can only be described as bleak. We are: 26th in Gate revenues, 20th in Concession revenues, 23rd in Advertising/Signage revenues, tied for last (22nd) in Parking revenues and tied for last (23rd) in Suite revenues for an overall ranking of 28th. Dead last. Unless this changes dramatically, our fans will be continuosly subjected to seasons like the one we just endured, which was not up to anyone's expectations.

Yet another suggestion made by many writers claims that if Mr. Pohlad would just spend more money on quality players -- the team would win more, the fans would return in droves, and we'd all be happy campers here in the Metrodome. We understand that to most people this logic seems to make sense, but nothing could be further from the truth. As an example I offer this research: Even if the Twins drew 2.5 million fans (this year's attendance was 1.4M), with an average payroll of around 40 million (the Twins '97 payroll was 28M) -- the club would still lose around 9 million dollars a year. And to complicate matters even further, the economics today get worse each day.

It has also been suggested that baseball salaries (in fact all athletic salaries) and payrolls are out of control and if Mr. Pohlad and the rest of the owners would simply reign in their outlandish spending, the game would eventually be returned to its rightful owners: The fans. Again, this one is way out in left field. The last time the owners tried to assume any control over the runaway spending they were slapped with a multi-million dollar collusion lawsuit by the players association -- and lost. The players have a union and a collective bargaining agreement in the first place for exactly that reason -- to protect themselves from renegade owners determined to set their own agendas.

The conundrum facing the owners is this: If they, as a group, decide to curb their spending, they are guilty of collusion in the courts eye's, and no one's going to be silly enough to try to do it alone. That'd be like sentencing yourself to mediocrity (or worse). The owners are forced to spend more and more on player salaries each year and that is not going to change. If an owner has any intention of competing on the field, he's going to have to be willing to compete off the field in the free-agent market as well. However, it is ridiculous to expect that player salaries are ever going to go down until there's a radical paradigm shift. The escalating salaries are the result of competition which is the backbone of our free enterprise economy.

For the Twins we are no longer just trying to compete, we are struggling to survive. Even if the Twins received every conceivable Metrodome concession from the MSFC, and drew 2.5 million fans, we still could not afford to pay even an average payroll. Therefore, it appears to us as if the current functioning revenue equation is as follows: (a) new ballpark = (b) new revenue streams = (c) more money to spend on higher quality players = (d) more on-field success = (e) more fans in the stands = (repeat steps b,c,d and e) for as long as possible.

Some writers have asked why Mr. Pohlad ever signed the current lease in the first place and it's a valid question. (The scary thing is that our current lease has already been re-negotiated once from our original lease -- which would have had us hemorrhaging more money than we currently are). When the current lease was re-done after our World Series win in 1987, Mr. Pohlad was competing solely against other family-owned ballclubs and the Twins were competetive. In fact, you might even say quite successful.

However, in the early 90's the playing field shifted dramatically as a result of an explosion of corporate entities getting involved in baseball. With the likes of Disney (Anaheim), Nintendo (Seattle), Time Warner (Atlanta) and the Chicago Tribune (Cubs) investing in baseball, Mr. Pohlad is now competing against corporate-backed franchises with larger wallets and or the ability to sustain greater losses. The net result of this competition has yielded five consecutive losing seasons on the field and escalating financial losses off the field.

Another consideration with regard to the state of the club's current lease with the MSFC: There was no Lottery and Casino Gambling in this state in 1987, and no one foresaw the effect said gaming would have on the entire entertainment complex. Minnesota's per capita expenditures on gaming is the nation's third highest with over 7 billion dollars being spent in 1997 alone. Imagine, if the Twins captured just one percent of that discretionary entertainment spending -- that'd be 70 million dollars. However, that money is being spent elsewhere and we're seeing the results.

Speaking of gaming -- many writers have expressed a concern about the expansion of gambling if Black Jack or slot machines become components of the state's involvement and we just don't see it that way. There are plenty of opportunities for folks to gamble in this state and we don't believe that there's a whole nest of would-be gamblers waiting in the weeds for another outlet. Heck, it's only three miles from Mystic Lake so if folks are so inclined, they'll find a way to part with their money. If it helps the Twins and the Minnesota Thoroughbread Racing industry in the process, so much the better.

A new ballpark simply enables us to harness some sources of revenue not currently at our disposal. For a graphic depiction of what new ballparks do, look no further than the playoff teams this year in the AL; the one commonality. Four teams qualified for post-season play and two (Baltimore & Cleveland) have new ballparks and another (Seattle) has a new one on the way. What about the fourth team you ask? Well, that'd be the Yankee's and they get 50 million more than us each year just in cable TV rights alone, so unless we find some other revenue streams, competing with them is merely a myth.

One other thing -- Mr. Pohlad has never said that he "expects" the public to pay for this new ballpark. In fact, when his original proposal was shot down in the legislature he supported other legislative (ie. slots at Canterbury, Lottery proceeds and cigarette taxes etc.) efforts that would have minimized the impact or cost to the general public. But those efforts also failed to gain much support at the Capital and now we find ourselves in a most uncomfortable position.

Another question raised by many writers has to do with why no attempt was made by Mr. Pohlad to sell the ballclub to any other local ownership groups. This one's quite simple to defend: No other local groups expressed an interest in purchasing the Twins. We know all too well that Clark Griffith went public with the fact that he had assembled a group that was going to present an $80 million dollar offer to Mr. Pohlad. First of all, no such offer ever materialized, other than in the newspaper, and second, Mr. Pohlad has no intention of selling this ballclub at that type of a discounted price. He's invested over $110 million already and it's reasonable to assume that any sale of this franchise is going to at least net out what's been invested. The original purchase of the Twins was an investment after all.

The legislature, by its inaction last Spring, spoke clearly. Perhaps the Upper Midwest's baseball fans have spoken as well and we just don't like the answer? We'll have to see. One thing's for certain, there's still a lot yet to happen and whichever way it turns out, we're preparing ourselves to deal with the results. At this point, that's all we can do.

One final thought that we believe merits consideration: This debate is far from over, and anyone who feels otherwise is simply kidding themselves. If the Twins do leave for North Carolina, this debate most certainly will return again soon and the costs then will far surpass what the expected costs are today. The North Stars are an example of this. For 34 million dollars in 1991 the Stars could have remained in Minnesota at Met Center. The legislature balked and Mr. Green moved the club to Dallas. The cost for the new hockey team today: Over 150 million and counting, and all it took was one politician (Mayor Coleman) to lure the sport back.

We believe that this same scenario will likely happen with baseball and the expansion price (or purchase price if another existing club chooses to move) will be steep, plus this pesky stadium piece of the puzzle will still need to be resolved. Why not resolve it now, in today's dollars, instead of taking the chance that it does not rear it's ugly head five years down the road?

What can you do?

For starters it might help if you perform a personal inventory as to which side of the moral debate best describes how you feel about the existence of professional sports in your community. Also, when you're trying to decide how you feel remember that you can't have it both ways either (ie. "I feel that professional sports are an asset to the community, I just don't like all the baggage that comes with them"). You either accept them, warts and all, or you do not, there's no room for middle ground. Also, remember this: There is no pot of money just waiting to be spent towards curbing all of our other social ills. If we leave, people are not going to be able to look around and see that at long last, life is fair and good for all. Finally, once you've decided where you stand -- participate actively in the debate.