Next game at Target Field: Royals at Twins
Playoff Challenge    Archive    Target Field History    Theme:

So Long, Class of '01

November 24, 2007 8:56 PM

Should we talk about the Twins player moves on a site dedicated to the new ballpark?

Well, I'll admit that personnel decisions are not really my strong suit. But there's no doubt that a certain group of players had a lot to do with the very existence of the new ballpark. And another group of players will determine how successful it is in its first decade.

The Class of 2001

2001 Minnesota Twins

Losing Torii was way more emotional than I expected. Deep down I knew it was coming, but hoped there would be a miracle. And when I heard the news, my teeth clenched, I got a catch in my throat, and I felt exactly the same as I did when I heard that Killebrew had gone to KC.

I didn't think these players could have that affect on me anymore. I was wrong.

But the "why" may not be what you expect. Torii was the last of the original "Get-To-Know-Em" Twins. That's right, the last of the Twins that saved baseball in Minnesota. The last of the Twins who are directly responsible for the very existence of the new ballpark (legislators, politicians, and Hennepin County shoppers notwithstanding).

They were the 2001 Twins:

Guzman, Rivas, Lawton, Koskie, Ortiz, Hunter, Jones, Mientkiewicz, Pierzynski.

Radke, Milton, Mays, Redman, Lohse.

Hawkins, Wells, Guardado, Romero.

Kelly. Gardenhire.

(And a few more.)

Maybe you don't remember those heady days in the spring of '01, so let me refresh your memory.

The 2000 Twins had the distinction of primarily being Not Nearly As Disappointing as the immediately previous half decade. Mostly this was due to significantly lowered expectations. No one was surprised when they finished squarely in last place (69-93, 26 games behind the White Sox).

But they had something that hadn't really been seen in Minnesota for a long, long time: potential. When 2001 started, no one really expected a much better showing than in '00, but it was possible. These Twins were fundamentally different from the past few iterations: They were fun to watch.

They were a very surprising 18-6 in April of 2001 -- enough to grab the attention of at least some fans who had drifted away (like this one). They were 34-17 on May 31 and still in first place. The defense was spectacular, the overall play was snappy. There weren't really stars (except, perhaps, Cristian Guzman who led the league in triples). They played like a real team. They picked each other up.

Get To Know Em

Hunter began to leap at the wall like he'd seen his mentor do so many times before. Guzy continued to make baserunning look fun. Mientkiewicz made everybody look good. AJ started really getting on people's nerves. Even Rivas looked good. TK, who many thought would not return in '01, had taught and motivated these guys well -- they were in awe of him and played like every game was Game 7.

In June the first cracks began to show, and they dropped out of first for a few days. But, unlike Twins teams of their recent past, they did not roll over. They fought back and were still 17 games over .500 and back in first place on June 30.

Their last day in first place was August 11, but by then baseball was back. The crowds had begun to grow, and it started to feel like the game was worth saving in Minnesota.

I remember a rainy day in November of 2001 when thousands of fans came out to the east parking lot at the Metrodome to loudly protest the proposed contraction of two teams. I was there, and it was quite a sight. One year earlier it could never have happened.

We cursed Selig that day. We cursed Pohlad (a little bit). But we didn't curse the team. We were there because of the team. We were there because baseball -- exciting baseball -- had returned. The Twins were once again worth saving.

And while a lot of forces had to converge over the next four years to get the team saved for good and a new ballpark approved, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it simply could not have happened without that 2001 team. Their personality and thrilling style of play brought back a lot of people who had drifted away. They didn't make us remember 1991 or 1987 -- they made us imagine a New October Team.

The next year, we got it. And the next. And now we've come to expect to be in contention almost automatically -- something which has never before been my experience with Minnesota Twins baseball.

These are grand times for the franchise, and it all began with the hot start of 2001.

Now that they're all gone, we can say thanks and we'll miss you. Which brings me to...

The Class of 2011

Torii Hunter

September 23, 2007

What a difference a decade makes.

The first year of any new ballpark is almost a guaranteed sell-out. People want to come down and see the new place, especially a bunch of people who have little or no interest in baseball, but just want to be seen where it is currently cool to be seen.

But in the second year that will start to dissipate. And it will dissipate very quickly if the product on the field doesn't have at least some reasonable chance of making some noise.

Torii Hunter will turn 36 in the middle of that season. He'll be making something in the neighborhood of $19MM for a year in which his defense will likely have declined significantly (most people assume he'll be in a corner by then), as will his offense -- if he's not a perpetual visitor to the disabled list. Should the Twins have made the type of deal with Hunter that the Angels did? Absolutely not. Should anyone? No way.

But there you have the economics of baseball in a nutshell (and I use "nut" intentionally). The Angels hope to have won something big by then, and maybe they will have. But even so, they will almost certainly wish they didn't have this burden on their payroll. Can they dump the contract at some point? Depends on how Torii holds up. Seems unlikely.

I wish Torii had taken three guaranteed years from the Twins with a couple of years of mutual options. Maybe I mean that I wish he had been offered that. But I totally understand the difference between "guarantee" and "option". Really, from his point of view, there's no choice to make.

From the Twins' standpoint, there was basically no chance that Torii would be the starting center fielder in the critical year of 2011 even if he were still with the team. The highest likelihood is that he would have been soaking up a big amount of that new ballpark revenue without giving much back. Even the "face of the franchise" needs to be healthy and playing.

But is it the same with Santana? He's four years younger and a pitcher (I've heard). Unlike Hunter, my gut tells me that Santana will still be a major force in 2011 (at age 32). And a lot of people with better baseball instincts than mine share that gut feeling.

Here's what's at stake:

A new ballpark only opens new revenue streams if the paying customers believe the team will be competitive. It only retains those revenue streams if the team actually remains competitive.

Before the ballpark opens, it's all about convincing the fans that you really want to win. Once it's open, that shifts to being about actually winning.

Without the new ballpark being built, I think the Santana situation is a no-brainer: sell high. But with the ballpark looming, moving Santana -- even if the return is equitable -- will look to the customer base like running up a white flag for the next seven seasons. It would be true for any team that traded away the best pitcher in the game, but worse for one about to open a new ballpark.

So then the equation becomes about goodwill as much as winning. Is Santana, who will likely get $25MM from somebody for the 2011 season, worth that much to the Twins in a combination of performance and goodwill to the fans? The answer, to me, is an obvious yes.

We don't know anything about projected payrolls after next year, but the Pohlads have to be looking at something like $105MM for 2011 and beyond. Can Santana fit into that with all the other "faces of the franchise" who will be getting more money by then? Big question.

Take heart. The Twins, ever since that fateful spring of 2001, have shown an amazing knack at long-term planning. They probably have this already figured out.


To utilized enhanced comment features, please enable cookies in your browser.

I think it's valid to talk about the team that plays in the stadium. nice waxing nostalgic on that team. It was a real wake up call for Twins fans when Matt Lawton was on the cover of Sports Illustrated that spring.

This is the only thing from the Twins that I've ever heard in regards to future stadium revenue:

Dave St. Peter was on KFAN the day after the plan was approved. When asked how much more revenue the new stadium will generate, St. Peter said ,"around $40 million" When asked how much will be spent on team payroll, he replied, "about $20 million"

Posted on December 9, 2007 at 11:31 AM by mike Highlight this comment 1

Thanks Rick. You've hit the nail on the head. We Twins fans believe that keeping a high cost player is unthinkable and impossible. This is mainly because the concept of "the Twins are unable to spend" has been drilled into our heads for the past 15 years.

But reality is far from the truth. The truth is that the Twins HAVE the resources to sign Santana. Once they move into a new park (which we're paying for), the following happens:

1. Ticket sales revenue increases
2. The stated net worth or value of the team dramatically increases
3. Licensing, food and 3rd party contracts increase revenue
4. The Twins still have one of the top 3 richest owners in baseball

I think it's fair that we fans expect our Twins to keep valuable players.

Posted on December 9, 2007 at 9:25 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 2

I agree that we could pay Santana, but the question is should we. I love Santana, But I can't see tying up a huge portion of the payroll on one guy, that is not an everyday player.

I have no problem with watching young talented guys who are hungry to prove themselves. i.e. The Colorado Rockies, or the early 2000 - Twins.

I'll I can say is that it was absolutely Not fun to watch Kevin Garnett Play on bad Timberwolves teams the last two years, and that is because they couldn't afford to pay anyone else. I my opinion you need a solid Team, not a superstar with a "supporting cast".

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 09:10 AM by Jon Highlight this comment 3

I spent the weekend in New York and was extremely glad I didn't have to see "Santana signs with the Yankees" headlines flashing in Times Square. I really want to watch Johan in OUR pinstripes come 2010 but I think the pieces that we don't have now and still won't have July 31st can truly be optained by trading him. Sad, but true, and also possibly smart. I don't think that the team is dumping santana because it's just always what the Twins do. They have a plan and won't let him leave without getting something 2001-esque in return. Thank you Mr. Smith.

PS: Good point about Garnett, Jon. I don't want a baseball version of that at all.
PPS: I flew into La Guardia Thursday and our plane approached directly over Shea/Citi Field. I had no idea how abismal that setting is for baseball and will be despite the upgraded facilities and attempt at nostalgia. It's a multi-million dollar investment planted right in the middle of $10 hookers and cracked asphault. Minnesota wins.

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM by John K Highlight this comment 4

The Garnett analogy is a bad one. MLB doesn't have a salary cap. The NBA does. Why does everybody talk about the "financial prudence" of signing or not signing Torii or Santana as if the dollars spent or dollars saved were actually coming and going from their own pockets? I want Santana AND the best supporting cast Pohlads money can buy! His club just about doubled in value and he's putting ANOTHER 20 mill annually in his pocket after 2010. Get it done and quit apologizing for him.

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM by D Highlight this comment 5

Rick, What is the word on connecting the 6th ave ped bridge to 1st ave? Have you heard anything? I still can't figure out where it will connect.

I was standing on First Ave the other day in front of the NBA City Restaurant, and that corner is at the same elevation of the future ped bridge. To me, that is the only true way to have a natural flow from downtown to the ballpark. I really don't care for the idea of everone having to walk around Target Center from 7th ave. For one thing, Its kind of ugly over there on that side of the building.

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM by Jon Highlight this comment 6


Any word if the Twins are going to allow the general public to view the ballpark model? The pics are great, but it would be fun to inspect in person!

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 8:52 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 7

Jeff, I was wondering the same thing about the model. I know it will be available to the general public at Twinsfest next month, but other than that, I have no clue either. It would definitely be nice to see in person.

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 11:16 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 8


Haven't heard anything recent, but last word was that the land price hadn't impacted plans to connect the ballpark to First Avenue -- though I don't think they had figured out exactly who was going to pay for it.


The model is supposedly visible through the front window at the Twins' offices on the 46th(?) floor of the Multifoods Tower.

I haven't been there to see it myself, but that's what I've heard.

Posted on December 10, 2007 at 11:32 PM by Rick 9

Jon & D,

I think Jon makes a valid point about a great player stuck on a team with no chance to win. Nobody wants to watch that. So keeping Santana isn't just about his salary, it's about being smart and aggressive up and down the roster. To me, this is the right time to adopt that attitude (even if it isn't a familiar approach to the franchise).

But the Pohlad approach to running a sports franchise seems to be based on the unlikelihood of winning it all -- even with the best players money can buy.

While it's true that you rake in the profits after the fact if your team wins a World Series, there's no magical formula which can tell you how much profit to give up in advance in order to win that title.

It sounds like they set payroll levels based on a more or less fixed percentage of forecast revenue. This guarantees modest profitability even without any big wins. This is a smart approach, but not very sexy.

Suppose they go for broke, play a few seasons at a huge loss while trying to win, but never ACTUALLY win. Without the big payday, you can bet they'd have to retreat into that familiar low-payroll, slim-but-measurable-profit strategy we came to hate back in the 90s just to get back to even.

Where this intersects the new ballpark is that they will get a big payday when the new park opens, but only for a year. What they do with that -- and more importantly what they do to prepare for that -- will determine whether the franchise is successful in its new home.

Roster moves now have the potential to impact the team for a much longer period of time than we're used to. That's why I think that moving Santana may be a much bigger risk than is generally acknowledged.

Of course, as with everything, it would depend on what they get back, how those replacements do, how the team itself does in the next two years, and how Santana does somewhere else. But if the Twins move Santana now and do not improve measurably, new revenue streams in the new ballpark could dry up faster than a Dome Dog in the sunshine.

Posted on December 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM by Rick 10

I think even with a mediocre team, the novelty factor will last longer than one year. This market hasn't seen outdoor pro sports in nearly 30 years. The factors are slightly different here than other cities that have opened new parks. I give it two or three years and then once the allure of seeing the nightime sky or feeling the sun on your face fades, people will demand to see a winner also. But I'd still like the the team to spend those projected revenues sooner rather than later.

Posted on December 11, 2007 at 10:29 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 11

I know it is hard to believe, but I actually agree with Tim on something.

The point he makes about 2010 NOT being a make or break year in terms of filling up the new ballpark on a regular basis makes a lot of sense. The fact that by that time Minneapolis will not have seen outdoor pro sports in 3 decades will have a very positive impact in terms of consistent attendance for I would guess at minimum 3 to 4 years. If, and hopefully when, the Vikings get a new stadium (either fully outdoors or with a retractable roof) you will see the same positive effect.

I guess that is why what seems to be the approach by the Twins this off season (at least the perceived approach by some) of focusing more on what their roster will look like in 2010 vs. 2008 is so frustrating for some. It is that continued feeling of perpetually "building for the future" as some current (and former) Twins have rightfully stated in the media.

Bit of a side note. It is very annoying that the majority of people (even though they are a significant minority in terms of actual population) who complain about building fully outdoor stadiums in Minneapolis are either from outstate/rural Minnesota or neighboring states (ND, SD, WI, IA, NE, MT). And the real kicker is most of the outstate/rural Minnesota whiners do not want to help Minneapolis/Hennepin County one bit towards paying for a retractable roof, but still have the f-ing audacity to complain about it so loudly as I have seen on some Twins ballpark blog. Bit of a tangent I know, but that was really bugging me after reading some similar comments out there in cyberspace recently.

Peace out

Posted on December 11, 2007 at 8:40 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 12

I love that there is no roof for this ballpark and I can only hope the vikes get a roofless stadium as well.

Posted on December 11, 2007 at 10:18 PM by Kyle Highlight this comment 13

Roofless stadiums are so 70's. After a couple of Brutal spring and fall cycles this worm will turn so fast it'll make your head spin. The over/under on the first OpEd article lamenting the roofless stadium and pining for the Dome days is 4.5 seasons.

Posted on December 12, 2007 at 07:17 AM by Yammin Highlight this comment 14

Yammin, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the metrodome conceived and designed - WITH A ROOF - in the 70's? How about these: Seattle Kingdome - opened in 1976. Pontiac Silver Dome - 1975. Montreal's Le Stade Olimpique - 1976. Houston Astrodome - 1965! It looks like roofed stadiums are so 70's to me.

I'm sure 4.5 years after Wrigley Field was built, they were regretting it too. That's right, how could I forget those epically proportioned "Tear Down Wrigley Campaigns" of 1918? I guarantee the one OpEd we will see in 4.5 years will be from the all-seeing Yammin trying to save face. Get a clue.

Posted on December 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM by John K Highlight this comment 15

Yammin your obviously not from Minnesota.

Posted on December 12, 2007 at 11:36 AM by Kyle Highlight this comment 16

Commerical Park, AT&T Park, Candem Yards, Busch Stadium III, Jacobs Field Turner Field, Rangers Ballpark, Great Amrican Ballpark, Yankee Stadium II, New Nationals Stadium, PNC Park, Citi Field, Petco Park, Phillie's park, Twins Ballpark, were all built/being built in the 1970s? Who Knew, I thought I was in the 2000s, better start dusting off that 8-track player.

Posted on December 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM by STM Highlight this comment 17

kyle, i disagree. ive been going to the games lately and i can tell you that it is a relief to get inside when the temp is around 0. I love outdoor baseball in summer, dont mind the heat, but right now i can tell you that the dome in winter is a more welcome site than air conditioning in summer. the retractable roof plan is perfect.

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM by karl Highlight this comment 18

stm...the perfect excuse to stop visiting a website.

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 08:18 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 19

Retractable roofs are fine if they are designed with some kind of interesting or unique archiectural design. I like the drawings of Tampa's roof. It looks like a big sail and will be right in the harbor...It looks cool and fits into the surroundings. Miller Park with the fan out roof is unique. Some might call it ugly, but you can't argue that it's different.

If it is a plain flat roof like Seattle, Arizona, Houston, etc. I think those roof styles are eye sores and take away from the ballpark feel. When they are open it still feels like this big thing looming over you. I'd rather have a few days where I need to bundle up or bring an umbrella than have one of those big ugly roofs.

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 09:06 AM by Jon Highlight this comment 20

I just believe the Vikings would be more competitive in an outdoor stadium, I think that the cold works to our advantage. I just want to see one superbowl in my lifetime. Happy to see no twins on the Mitchell Report!

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 2:22 PM by Kyle Highlight this comment 21

Chad Allen, Chuck Knoblauch, Juan Rincon, Rondell White, and Denny Neagle are all on Mitchell report with Twins affiliations...

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 22

I would hardly call Juan Rincon & Rondell White Twin's ball players.

They have both been so uninspiring the last couple years you can forgive one if they happen to forget they are/were even on the team at one point! :-)

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 11:01 PM by Stevie Souhan - Jim Souhan's brother Highlight this comment 23

Agree with Kyle 100% and he makes a great point about the Vikings having an inherent advantage when they were an outdoor team at the Met. Lest we all forget that they haven't been back to the Super Bowl since they moved indoors (although 1998 should have been the year.....frickin' Gary Anderson.....SOB).

I (and think a lot of other real football fans) would be very happy to see a fully outdoor Vikings stadium in downtown Minneapolis come 2012, but I am sure they will only go the retractable roof direction.

Posted on December 13, 2007 at 11:06 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 24

Your brother is a hack.

Posted on December 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM by Aaron Highlight this comment 25

Betaband, have you ever been to Lambeau when it's freezing. Aside from the fans, it's just not an enjoyable experience.

Posted on December 14, 2007 at 12:47 AM by larry Highlight this comment 26

Sorry there Luke meant to say "current" twins.

Posted on December 14, 2007 at 01:29 AM by Kyle Highlight this comment 27

larry - yes, i have watched football outdoors in the upper-midwest in November/December. i think it is an awesome experience no matter the temperature. not trying to sound like too much of a loud mouth jerk here, which is hard for me, but you kind of sound like a bit of a nancy-boy & fair weather football fan to me. the 60's/70's & early 80's outdoors at the Met for vikings games were the best! outdoor football is where it is at regardless of weather.

specific to lambeau, i hate the butt pukers, so no you couldn't pay me enough money to step into that crap hole with those losers from wisky.

i am sure i would get into a fight with those foam cheese turd wearing sconnie' idiots every time!

Posted on December 14, 2007 at 11:54 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 28

So, back to the ballpark, they poured concrete early this morning for the deck they built. Is that going to be a concourse?

Posted on December 17, 2007 at 11:10 AM by Andrew Highlight this comment 29

it's the mezzanine level housing mainly the concessions operation according to st peter's blog.

Posted on December 17, 2007 at 2:06 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 30

Are you going to have any new construction photos in the days ahead? I really enjoy the site and it's nice to see the progress from a different vantage point. Keep up the great work!

Posted on December 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM by John Highlight this comment 31

Link to another story about how smart the Twins are and how dumb the rest of the league is.....

Posted on December 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM by jaboz Highlight this comment 32

Season's Greetings everyone. one of the presents I'm waiting for won't be in commission until April of 2010.

Posted on December 25, 2007 at 6:21 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 33

Does anyone know why the Web-cam has been out of commission for the past 3 days?

Posted on December 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM by Big-rob Highlight this comment 34

Don't know why it's been out of commission, but it sure is annoying.

Posted on December 30, 2007 at 11:55 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 35

The webcam is back up now. I'm wondering why it was down as well.


Posted on January 1, 2008 at 12:04 PM by Pikachu732001 Highlight this comment 36

I can't wait to take my boys to outdoor Twins games in 2010. It is going to be one of the best parks in baseball. But, I can't help but to be a little concerned about that garbage burner. I drove by the other day and there was a low-lying huge plume of steam headed due east, right over where the park will sit. It could be kind of embarrassing during a nationally-televised game if a thick fog from the plant creeps over the park. The announcers would make sure to have fun with that one. Have the Twins ever expressed much concern over this?

Great website by the way!

Posted on January 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM by KR Highlight this comment 37

Looks like the first bleacher area has been poured!!!! Right field corner.

Posted on January 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM by moda253 Highlight this comment 38

In regards to the garbage burner, I thought I heard it mentioned that it would not ever be in use during a game.

Posted on January 2, 2008 at 12:39 PM by B Highlight this comment 39

The only thing coming out of the garbage burner is steam -- which has NO smell. (My company used to have its offices in Ford Centre and I've spent a lot of time in the neighborhood. I never smelled anything. Never. Not even once.)

I don't know if it will run during games, but I suspect that they will make accommodations if there is any chance that steam will be blown toward the ballpark.

To me, the garbage burner is the ultimate non-issue for the ballpark project.

Posted on January 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM by Rick 40

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that approx $200,000 of the budget for this stadium was to go toward garbage burner aesthetic improvments. Does anyone know if this is still a go? I was never worried about smell, but have always been concerned by it's lack of attraction.

Posted on January 3, 2008 at 09:11 AM by John K Highlight this comment 41

Yes, it's something of an eyesore. I hadn't heard anything about cosmetic improvements. I'm not sure what could be done anyway. Something tells me that the long-term plan (10-20 years) is to get rid of the thing altogether, or maybe move it.

I believe there is some money budgeted somewhere to move or somehow modify one of the buildings on the site, but that's in connection with the light rail (which , on the new bridge, could run directly into one of the buildings).

Posted on January 3, 2008 at 09:24 AM by Rick 42

Agreements are in place to not discharge any steam or excess waste before, during, and immediately after the ballpark is being used. Also, they've taken a lot of the landscaping out around the burner campus to use as a staging area for construction. My guess is that they will replace landscaping to appropriately "hide" the facility once construction is complete.

Posted on January 3, 2008 at 11:03 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 43

It's good to know that the garbage burner will be hidden somewhat, and no stink will be emitted around game time. I can't WAIT to see this ballpark rise up from the ground!!

Posted on January 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM by ABSG Highlight this comment 44

Hi all. Our friends at Minnescraper have some great construction pics. Check them out!

Posted on January 7, 2008 at 09:34 AM by JK Highlight this comment 45

Dave St. Peter's latest blog entry is up and discusses the possibility of an NHL game at the ballpark. He also mentioned that a skating rink was considered for center field.

Posted on January 7, 2008 at 1:27 PM by Pikachu732001 Highlight this comment 46

oh goodie...a winter skating rink in center field to tear up the outfield grass...oh i just love the gimmicks DSP, please keep them coming!!!!

Posted on January 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 47

I'm pretty sure that if they put a skating rink that they could do it properly. It would more than likely be staged and wouldn't be directly on the grass.

Why does it seem like everyone else must be a complete idiot in some people's minds?

Posted on January 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM by moda253 Highlight this comment 48

because this is a BALLPARK...Must we make this building into something its not? I'm fine with gimmicky junk, so long as it doesn't impose on the quality of the ballpark. DSP himself noted the ballclub has concerns of the field conditions as a result of an ice rink in center field. This is a ballpark, not an ice rink. Don't they still have a skating rink at the Washington Ave Milwaukee Depot??? If so, why would we need another?

Posted on January 10, 2008 at 1:36 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 49

I think an outfield rink would be a great idea. For me who grew up playing hockey, to be able to skate at my favorite baseball teams ballpark would be priceless. As long as it didn't ruin the playing surface.

Oh and Kevin in AZ where they don't have outdoor rinks, the Depot is indoors

Posted on January 10, 2008 at 8:42 PM by loves outdoor rinks Highlight this comment 50

We need an update ... The mood is starting to get tense ... Even if theres nothing to update ... Put up an update that says "There is nothing to update, you can now keep debating the pros and cons of a skating rink"

Thank You and Godspeed

Posted on January 11, 2008 at 04:33 AM by Derek Highlight this comment 51

The Skating rink would be for the Wild to play an outdoor hockey game on just like the did in Buffalo. I don't think it would be for the public.

Posted on January 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM by Andrew Highlight this comment 52

Jacobs Field will become Progressive'll always be Jacobs to me. I hope we get a name with a nice ring to it.

Posted on January 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 53

Since Hennepin County and the taxpayers are paying for a majority of the ballpark makes sense to use this site and the surrounding areas more than 81 times each year. If there is a way they can put an ice rink in the outfield without damaging the grass, it's a great idea. It would also attract people to the downtown ballpark area during the Twins offseason. It's a great idea to get more visitors throughout the year aside from the 81 home dates the Twins would occupy the stadium. They could also have a "festival of trees" type of thing in the stadium to coincide with the Holidazzle parade during November-December. This would be a great addition, especially considering trees will be part of the "batter's eye" in centerfield.

Those are just some great ideas to make more use of this ballpark during the offseason. It would also add something very unique to this outdoor ballpark. It's worth a try considering the large amount of public financing being used for this project.

Posted on January 11, 2008 at 2:50 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 54

Anyone see that they renamed Jacobs Field in Cleveland to "Progressive Field" will always be known as "The Jake" in my mind just like I still refer to the White Sox home as Comiskey Park rather than U.S. Cellular Field

Posted on January 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 55

Here's a cool construction picture from a different angle...looking from the garbage burner toward the city.

Posted on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM by Excited Highlight this comment 56

Excited - thanks for the pic. It really shows how ugly the Target Center is. How did that design get approved?

Posted on January 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 57

Lets start the multifoods tower beautification commitee now. ideas?

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM by Paul Highlight this comment 58

I for one like what the Multifoods tower brings out the best of the other skyscrapers by sacrificing itself to the Gods of bore and bland. Every city needs one. I think the real focus needs to be the Target Center. At least paint over the creme/pink/baby blue, Zach-Morris-outfit, is-it-a-boy/is-it-a-girl, I-didn't-know-the-Twolves-played-in-City-Center scheme. Please? Anyone?

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 08:53 AM by John K Highlight this comment 59

Please don't disrespect Zach Morris by mentioning it in the same sentence at the Target Center.


Kelly Kopawski

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 60

They really should have something done toteh targetcenter. It needs a new brick facade badly. Heck make it limestone just to tie it in. It is fantasticly ugly comepared to the rows of old warehouses it sits next to.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 61

Also in the picture of the plaza it looked like there were holes in it that you could see down into 394 but looking at the supports that they have in place, I don't see where there is going to be holes. the supports pretty much run all the way accross on all 3 lines without any breaks.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 62

I agree about the Target Center. Target Corporation is so hip as far as its image with their ads and tv commercials, etc. I can't beleive they want their name associated with such an ugly building. I wouldn't even care if they painted it Red, as long as they get rid of that ugly baby blue color.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:14 PM by Jon Highlight this comment 63

Carl Pohlad is the richest owner by far.......think about that one

Posted on February 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM by bw Highlight this comment 64


Posted on May 29, 2011 at 1:23 PM by bulldog Highlight this comment 65

This page was last modified on January 21, 2010.

"You talk about the magic, the aura, but what really makes a stadium is the fans. Concrete doesn't talk back to you. Chairs don't talk back to you. It's the people who are there, day in, day out, that makes the place magic."

– Bernie Williams

Explore the Site

Here are 50 images chosen randomly from the 3046 found on this site. Click the image to be taken to the original post. A new list is created every 10 minutes.

The pink thing is a mascot. (Actually, with a damn fine mascot actor underneath.)

Polo Grounds from the south

An arch under construction.

Good seats, but no scoreboard or sky.

"Hey look! There we are!"

This looks south and shows the track configuration for Northstar. The platform shown is just a placeholder. To the best of my knowledge, concept drawings for this platform have not been released. Keep in mind, this is NOT part of the ballpark project. It is completely separate.

I love this view of the Basilica.

Ticket booths.

Looking back toward the park from just beyond the north end of the Northstar platform.

A scene repeated about a BILLION times each game

Limestone will cover this pretty soon, but for now you can see where the escalator is.

Reverse view, now looking down Sixth toward the park. The Met Stadium flag pole will be right there!

Legends Club fireplace (there are two)

At left, across the tracks by that pile of dirt is where the Northstar commuter train platform will be built, and where Twins fans will apparently NOT be able to get a train after night games. (For reference, that's the Fifth Street bridge, with the ballpark site just beyond it. The east corner of Ford Centre is just visible at the right edge of the picture.)

His body language might as well be the box score.

Staging for the next section (Home Plate Box)

Legend's Club, Section E (Click to enlarge greatly.)

Skinny dugouts at TF

For some inexplicable reason, a lot of the new parks being built these days feature grand staircases like this one.

Looking south (toward Seventh Street).

Hey! An unnumbered gate!

Dude, this is NOT a multi-use facility.

In the top of the 9th, the sun hit our backs and summer took one last long look.

Click to enlarge.

The lot within the lot.

Building the canopy is a spectacular sight.

The top of a warehouse visible beyond a parking ramp.

Legends Club seats in context (above the main concourse, below the suite level)


BPM - Ballpark Magic

BRT - Bus Rapid Transit

DSP - Dave St. Peter

FSE - Full Season Equivalent

FYS - Fake Yankee Stadium (see also: NYS)

HERC - Hennepin Energy Resource Company (aka the Garbage Burner)

HPB - Home Plate Box

HRP - Home Run Porch

LC - Legends Club

LRT - Light Rail Transit

MBA - Minnesota Ballpark Authority (will own Target Field)

MOA - Mall of America

MSFC - Minnesota Sports Facilities Commission (owns the Metrodome)

NYS - New Yankee Stadium

SRO - Standing Room Only

STH - Season Ticket Holder

TCFBS - TCF Bank Stadium

TF - Target Field

Selected Bibliography - Analysis


First Edition (1992)

Second Edition (2006)


Selected Bibliography - Surveys


Second Edition (1987)

Not a "Third Edition" exactly,
but it replaced the above title

(2000, large coffee table)

Original edition (2000, round)

Revised edition (2006, round)

(2001, medium coffee table)

(2002, small coffee table)

(2003, medium coffee table)

(2004, very large coffee table)

(2006, very large coffee table)

Combines the previous two titles
(2007, medium coffee table)

Selected Bibliography - Nostalgia


Book and six ballpark miniatures

Complete Bibliography

BallparkMagic™  •  3300 Bloomington Avenue  •  Minneapolis, MN 55407  •  (612) 392-3104
This is a fan site and in no way affiliated with the Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Ballpark Authority, or Major League Baseball.
Unless otherwise noted, this page and all of its contents are Copyright © 2001-2010 BallparkMagic/Lowell (Rick) Prescott.
All Rights Reserved. Used by permission. Privacy Notice