• And It Will Be The Twins To Face The Yankees…

    Posted by on October 6th, 2009 · Comments (24)

    Well, that has to be one of the greatest one-game tie-breaker play-ins ever…right? And, as a Yankees fan, can you ask for for anything more…all those nail-biting innings…and extra frames…etc. The Twinkies will be coming into New York on fumes.

    Actually, I’m happy for the Twins. I have no beef with the Tigers. But, I’m a fan of Minnesota’s front office (outside of their ownership). I think Ron Gardenhire is a great old-school manager. The team plays sound and fundamental baseball. There are some really good guys on the team like Michael Cuddyer and Joe Nathan – just to name two. Also, my friend Rob – who is as great a baseball fan as anyone can be – is originally from Minnesota and is a Twins fan…so, I’m happy for him.

    Do I want the Twins to beat the Yankees now in the ALDS? No, of course not. But, I can be happy for them making this great comeback – and forcing this game…and then winning it.

    Now, it gets interesting. The Twins are white-hot, winning 17 of their last 21 games (including this one). But, historically, the Yankees own them. So, which trend will “win” out now – history or the hot-streak?

    While I still feel that there’s no excuse for the Yankees to not beat the Twins in the ALDS, if Minnesota can manage to win just one of the first two games of this series, it could be interesting. Taking one in New York this week makes the series then “best two of three” with the Twins then having the homefield advantage. And, as you saw today, the Metrodome can get loud…plus, there’s that roof and turf. The playing field is not as “marbles in a bathtub” bad as it used to be…but, it’s not going to help the Yankees defense at short and in the outfield corners…for sure.

    This ALDS could be interesting, indeed.

    Comments on And It Will Be The Twins To Face The Yankees…

    1. JeremyM
      October 6th, 2009 | 10:14 pm

      The funny thing is their fundamentals were off tonight- bad plays by Young in left, the terrible jump before the play at the plate, etc. I’m nervous before every series, but I will be ill if they somehow lose to Pavano.

    2. Tresh Fan
      October 6th, 2009 | 10:35 pm

      Game 1 is key. If the Twins can manage to win tomorrow they will be tough to beat IMHO.

    3. ken
      October 6th, 2009 | 10:59 pm

      Well, that has to be one of the greatest one-game tie-breaker play-ins ever…right?

      Steve, have you forgotten so quickly about the Bucky Dent game?

      And today’s game was exciting because of what was at stake and the extra innings. But there were too many mistakes on both sides to be a true classic.

    4. October 6th, 2009 | 11:14 pm

      @ ken:
      Re: 10/2/78 – I said today was one of the greatest – not THE greatest. ;-)

    5. October 6th, 2009 | 11:15 pm

      And, yes, there were mistakes in this game – but, there was sooooo much drama…and that made it special.

    6. Evan3457
      October 6th, 2009 | 11:39 pm

      A fun game to watch, especially from about the 7th inning on, but as it dragged on with mistakes on both sides, and some good plays too, and bad relief pitching, helped out by defense both good and lucky, I thought to myself: “There’s no rational reason to fear either of these teams.”

      They still have to play the games, of course.

    7. Raf
      October 7th, 2009 | 12:30 am

      I was surprised to see Rodney go out there for another inning. Guess Leyland really didn’t have faith in his other guys or he didn’t want to go to one of his starters. I still think he should’ve left Porcello in a bit longer.

      Something else to note, this is the second AL Central title that the Tigers choked away

    8. October 7th, 2009 | 1:08 am

      Sometimes it’s hard to tell where the Collapse and Comeback fall into place. Were the Tigers that bad both times – or the other comeback teams just better?

    9. Raf
      October 7th, 2009 | 1:42 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Sometimes it’s hard to tell where the Collapse and Comeback fall into place. Were the Tigers that bad both times – or the other comeback teams just better?

      Depends on what metric you want to use I suppose.

    10. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 8:39 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Sometimes it’s hard to tell where the Collapse and Comeback fall into place. Were the Tigers that bad both times – or the other comeback teams just better?

      The Twins might have been better over a 162 (or 163) game season, as their Pythag Runs indicate but the fact remains that the Tigers were up 2 with 3 to play. That’s a choke-job…

    11. Corey
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:07 am

      Did anyone see where they cut to the horrible weather conditions in Minnesota during the game last night? What the hell were they thinking building an open air stadium?

    12. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:16 am

      Corey wrote:

      Did anyone see where they cut to the horrible weather conditions in Minnesota during the game last night? What the hell were they thinking building an open air stadium?

      Because retractable roofs cost $300-$500M and that’s an incredible additional burden to place on taxpayers, especially in a Midwestern economy that gets worse by the year.

    13. Corey
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:22 am

      MJ wrote:

      Because retractable roofs cost $300-$500M and that’s an incredible additional burden to place on taxpayers, especially in a Midwestern economy that gets worse by the year.

      If you can’t afford something, you shouldn’t buy it in the first place. That stadium is going to be a nightmare, watch. They’ll end up spending more in rennovations over the years.

    14. Corey
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:24 am

      Not to mention, if it’s a WBC year like this one and the Twins make it to the World Series, they’ll be playing November baseball, outside, in Minnesota. I’d like to see that happen…no, really.

    15. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:28 am

      Corey wrote:

      If you can’t afford something, you shouldn’t buy it in the first place. That stadium is going to be a nightmare, watch. They’ll end up spending more in rennovations over the years.

      One could argue that the Yanks could afford their ballpark and that they should’ve added a retractable roof to it since, after all, the weather isn’t so peachy here in April or October.

      I can’t blame them for building a new ballpark without a roof feature. Ultimately, weather should only impact the first and last few games of any season. For as many miserable home games we endured in April (it seemed like it rained for the entire first 5 weeks of home games we had) it turned out alright for us. Minnesota may be colder than New York but we’re talking about 20 games being at risk, not 100.

    16. Corey
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:36 am

      MJ wrote:

      One could argue that the Yanks could afford their ballpark and that they should’ve added a retractable roof to it since, after all, the weather isn’t so peachy here in April or October.

      Yes they could, and I have. To me, they made a silly mistake.

      MJ wrote:

      Minnesota may be colder than New York but we’re talking about 20 games

      Yea, except for the fact that it’s the most important 20 games.

    17. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 9:46 am

      Corey wrote:

      Yea, except for the fact that it’s the most important 20 games.

      Don’t agree. My 20-game estimate includes April games. It’s just as likely (if not far likelier) that April games will face inclement weather.

    18. butchie22
      October 7th, 2009 | 10:38 am

      A funny thing about Inge being hit and it not being called: was the home plate umpire blind? Is that gonna happen at Fenway or Yankee Stadium during the playoffs? That was a terrible call,it would have changed the balance of the game for sure. This year has been one of the absolute worst for umpire calls,hands down. I just hope it doesn’t have an effect on the playoffs.

      @ Corey ,the projected roof cost much less than your estimate BTW. For Target Field the cost was at least 100 million dollars to start with .Look Target is the sponsoring that new park, so they couldn’t use that money to amortize the cost of the dome? C’mon that is ridiculous. And the Pohlad family has been notoriously cheap. Karl Pohlad was like the anti-Steinbrenner,so they liked to nickel and dime everything. Can you imagine a snow out in the world series in Minnesota because of this pennywise attitude?

    19. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 11:16 am

      @ butchie22:
      Actually, I was the one that put the retractable roof cost at between 300-500 million. That’s the number that has been cited in other stadium construction deals so that’s where I got my estimate from. It’s certainly possible that it might be cheaper but even if it’s only an additional $100M, that’s still a burden for taxpayers considering they’re already footing at least a $400M bill on a sports facility that, evidence shows, never repays investors and only drives profits for the team (and not the municipal authority that funded it).

      Separately, as to the Target sponsorship, the value of the naming rights is far less than you would think.

      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/124009

      If the Twins are getting even $5M from Target, that’s barely enough to cover debt service on the facility without the roof cost. Naming rights deals, especially in baseball, aren’t as lucrative given the fact that baseball facilities tend to only host 80-90 events per season, as compared to basketball/hockey arenas that can host as many as 300 events per season (like Madison Square Garden, for example). More events, more value to the facility naming rights.

    20. Raf
      October 7th, 2009 | 11:18 am

      Corey wrote:

      Did anyone see where they cut to the horrible weather conditions in Minnesota during the game last night? What the hell were they thinking building an open air stadium?

      That’s the thing, I don’t know. I was surprised that they were able to get a new Stadium.

      Perhaps some of our older members here can chime in about the Met? The Twins moved to the dome in 82, I was too young to have any lasting impressions about Metropolitan Stadium (I was only 8). I did find it amusing that the Twins played at Metropolitan Stadium longer than they did the Metrodome.

      FWIW, the Saints play in an open air stadium, and they seem to do just fine. Having said that, seeing as the playoffs are starting to extend into November, I can see where postseason baseball in Minny can pose a bit of a problem.

    21. Raf
      October 7th, 2009 | 11:22 am

      MJ wrote:

      It’s certainly possible that it might be cheaper but even if it’s only an additional $100M, that’s still a burden for taxpayers considering they’re already footing at least a $400M bill on a sports facility that, evidence shows, never repays investors and only drives profits for the team (and not the municipal authority that funded it).

      And a stadium that they didn’t need in the first place.

      FWIW, people seemed to be excited at the prospect of outdoor baseball. Also, there used to be a big rivalry between the Minneapolis Millers and the St. Paul Saints that was killed when the Twins moved to town. I didn’t know that.

    22. MJ
      October 7th, 2009 | 11:43 am

      Raf wrote:

      FWIW, people seemed to be excited at the prospect of outdoor baseball.

      I would be excited too. As much as the weather in Minnesota may come into play in April/late September (or October, if necessary), I don’t think it’ll be as big a deal as people are making it out to be. How many home rainouts did the Yanks have this year? How many home rainouts did the Phillies, Orioles, Nationals, Cubs, White Sox and Red Sox have this year? If the weather in Minnesota is even 15-20% worse than in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago and Boston, then we’re still only talking about a handful of games.

      Yes, it sucks for the fans and yes, it’s annoying to potentially play July doubleheaders. But it’s not like 30-40 games will be washed away. Minnesotans will survive, just as we do when we have to sit out in the rain.

      $100M isn’t a crumpled up dollar found on the street. The fight to get public funding for the new Twins Stadium was difficult enough without asking for more money for a retractable roof.

    23. butchie22
      October 7th, 2009 | 12:48 pm

      MJ wrote:

      @ butchie22:
      Actually, I was the one that put the retractable roof cost at between 300-500 million. That’s the number that has been cited in other stadium construction deals so that’s where I got my estimate from. It’s certainly possible that it might be cheaper but even if it’s only an additional $100M, that’s still a burden for taxpayers considering they’re already footing at least a $400M bill on a sports facility that, evidence shows, never repays investors and only drives profits for the team (and not the municipal authority that funded it).
      Separately, as to the Target sponsorship, the value of the naming rights is far less than you would think.
      http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/124009
      If the Twins are getting even $5M from Target, that’s barely enough to cover debt service on the facility without the roof cost. Naming rights deals, especially in baseball, aren’t as lucrative given the fact that baseball facilities tend to only host 80-90 events per season, as compared to basketball/hockey arenas that can host as many as 300 events per season (like Madison Square Garden, for example). More events, more value to the facility naming rights.

      Ummm, do you know how much the Twins are getting from Target or just hypothesizing? I apologize to Corey, it seemed from the quote that it was Corey, so my bad Corey. You mentioned other construction deals ? Ebbets Dome was supposed to cost at least an extra 150 mill on top of the Stadium AND that was in NYC where the construction costs are much higher than the Midwest. Construction costs are relative especially since NY is so construction is so unionized.

      My point regarding Target Field is that the Pohlads have a ton of money. They are only contributing 130 mill to the new project. They couldn’t add an extra 100 mill at least in lieu of the fact that the weather is such a bloody issue there? Pennywise and pound foolish if you ask me. As I mentioned that that Pohlad was the anti- Steinbrenner , they could have still amortized the cost via many different means inclusing naming rights for quite some time(even if it is 5 or 6 million a year in naming rights money). Instead, they have created a situation where the weather will be a problem at least for a considerable chunk of the regular season AND the playoffs. Hence my snarky remark regarding a snowout in November!

    24. Raf
      October 7th, 2009 | 12:56 pm

      butchie22 wrote:

      They couldn’t add an extra 100 mill at least in lieu of the fact that the weather is such a bloody issue there?

      That’s the thing, it really isn’t. The Twins played @ the Met longer than they did @ the Metrodome. The St. Paul Saints play in an outdoor stadium. Many of the people I spoke to while there were excited to have outdoor baseball return to Minny.

      I don’t think the weather in MN can be any worse than say, Chicago. And even if it were, I don’t remember all that many rainouts/snow outs there. Same for minor league games in Rochester and Buffalo, or Toronto and Milawukee before their domes were built.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.