Link Stats
Added By: Matt
Added on: 09/15/2008 @ 10:46:40 AM
Link View Count: 561
Minnesota Twins
Minnesota Twins
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

Target Field

The name sounds kind of dumb to me.
View External Link [minnesota.twins.mlb.com]
Back to Link List
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
09/16/2008 @ 11:43:22 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah the name is kind of weird. But Target Park sounds worse probably. Target Stadium? Now Target Field starts sounding better I suppose.

The part that concerns me a bit, and it is just a concern for now, is this sentence:

The Twins and Target will also collaborate on the design of Target Plaza, a pedestrian bridge and public gathering space connecting Target Field to downtown Minneapolis.

From all the things I've seen, that's probably one of, if not the defining attribute of the new stadium, and it would be a shame if they made it look like it's just a target booth at a business expo. Hopefully that's not what will happen. Hopefully, it will be Twins-based in decor and feel, but I'll be a little skeptical until I see it finished.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
09/16/2008 @ 11:49:37 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm more worried about the lack of nickname potential.

The Targ?
The Get?

Edit: I'm also not looking forward to the million times we're going to hear someone do the "Fancy"/Foreign "Targé" pronunciation that people who think they're funny do.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/16/2008 11:56:42 am
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 11:57:52 AM
 Quote this comment
The Homer Open-roofed stadium?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 12:17:24 PM
 Quote this comment
My main concern is whether the money Target is kicking in will defray the cost to the taxpayers of the State and County.

My guess is- no, it won't, it will go right to the owners' pockets.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
09/16/2008 @ 12:20:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Well either way it's money out of one pocket and into another. The amount of money the Twins committed (and thus the tax payers didn't have to commit) was likely increased more that it otherwise would have been, with recouping this money in mind.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 12:27:02 PM
 Quote this comment
They should charge more for non-resident admission.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
09/16/2008 @ 12:54:28 PM
 Quote this comment
You know what? You're probably half kidding, but that actually seems like a no-brainer idea that I can't believe no one is doing. The only problem would be kids that don't have ids, but you could just exclude kids anyway and charge everyone else an extra buck or something small.

Edit: Also, if people do things like if we had Carl buy us tickets to save the $1 then big deal.

They could even have "Everyone's a Minnesotan Thursdays" or something.

Edit again: It probably doesn't make huge sense to do this now, but I can't believe I've never heard it brought up as a partial solution to the "Why should only the locals have to pay?" issue while teams are lobbying for a stadium.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/16/2008 1:02:34 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 01:46:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Having a baseball stadium without a roof in that part of the country is questionable. Early season games at County Stadium were miserable. Plus, you never have to giveaway free baseball due to rainouts.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
09/16/2008 @ 02:07:14 PM
 Quote this comment
It's not just "questionable," it's downright stupid.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
09/16/2008 @ 02:16:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Right, I just didn't want to offend the Twins fans who were excited about the new stadium.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 02:20:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it's inevitable that there's going to be at least 5 times over the next 10 seasons where we drive 2 hours and it's rained out, decide to stay home because it's supposed to rain and it doesn't, or get halfway up there and a medium rain starts and we're not sure if we should turn around or not.

Games in the Dome go on rain, or shine, or massive nearby bridge collapse.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 03:04:02 PM
 Quote this comment
not excited that there is not a roof. I want a retractable roof!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
09/16/2008 @ 04:29:39 PM
 Quote this comment
retractable roof is the way to go. It adds expense, but it definitely is worth it over the long haul for the very reason Jeremy mentioned and more. Baseball was supposed to be played outdoors, but when it rains or is really cold, you should be able to account for that. Enter the sliding roof.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich
09/16/2008 @ 05:59:59 PM
 Quote this comment
BRILLIANT!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 06:25:50 PM
 Quote this comment


Non-starter for Twins ownership

I was half-kidding about the non-resident, only because it would be kind of a pain for teams to implement I think. They (I) would be banking on the fact that residents would purchase extra tickets because people like to be manipulated that way. "I can get tickets for a $1 less than my buddies? Shoot, I better get them a couple in case anyone else can make it too. Whoa, 50% off of pieces of poo!? I'll take 3 of those also." Or, "I'm going to purchase a bunch of tickets and then undercut the sales office by 10% and resell them to non-residents", which even if someone was successful at that the organization still gets their resident sized cut anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 06:54:23 PM
 Quote this comment
A new stadium isn't going to make them winners that's for sure.
How could they have not put a roof on the place? It makes no sense, and they've even talked about how horrible the weather is in April. Especially with this past season, where every other game has been cancelled. Get it together peoples!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 07:00:21 PM
 Quote this comment
A new stadium can help make a team a winner, but it really will only help if the city/area is a "baseball town". Milwaukee's attendance has skyrocketed since opening Miller Park. Putting people in the stands increases revenue and helps increase payroll. But, if the city doesn't care about baseball and doesn't even fill a stadium half full while in first place in their division (like the Rays, and lets face it, like the Twins), then I don't think a new stadium is going to draw many fans.

The Target would have been a better name. Although, they can give it the nickname, "The Bullseye". That's a pretty cool nickname for a stadium.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 07:09:09 PM
 Quote this comment
To be fair, we're used to being at or near the top and in the playoff hunt.


Ok, dig aside, in all seriousness it's unfair to compare Brewers and Twins attendance. The Twins have been good for a while. The Brewer fans, to an extent, are treating this season like it's a "once in a blue moon" thing. We also don't have to rent players to be at the top, so there's no sense of "now or never" like I have to imagine the Brewers' fans are feeling. Plus the Brewers still have a newish field. No one is going to the dome for the sake of going to the dome.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 09/16/2008 7:09:51 pm
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
09/16/2008 @ 07:18:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Umm, I'm not sure that has anything to do with what I said, and I was not in any way pointing to this season as my sample. My point was that Milwaukee is a baseball town, and you put a winning team there and there's going to be people in the stands County Stadium was packed in the early 80s and early 90s when the team was good. The Twins have been near the top of their division for about 5 or 6 years now and you would think they were the on par with the Devil Rays based on their attendance. That what I was saying. Even when the Twins ARE good they don't seem draw much of a crowd, even with tickets for like $10.

Seriously that was not one of your better points. "Dig aside" basically just led to more dig.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott edited this at 09/16/2008 7:21:28 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
09/16/2008 @ 10:03:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Actually, a quick glance at the numbers shows that the attendance for the Twins and Brewers have been pretty similar over the past 20-25 years despite the fact that most people concede that the Dome is an awful baseball stadium. Both teams have their ups and downs that coincide somewhat with how well the team is doing.

Now, in 2001, Miller Park opened and the Twins also started to get good. The Brewers got a huge attendance boost in 2001, then it dipped, and now their numbers are growing again these past few years that they have shown some life. Meanwhile the Twins attendance has been steadily growing during this time as the Twins have been good (and as people start to get interested again after the awfulness of Twins baseball in the late 90's, as well as getting over their anger towards Pohlad and his refusal to spend any money).

If you look at the numbers, from 2002-2006 the Twins and Brewers attendance numbers were essentially the same, with the Brewers pulling ahead in '07 and '08. Obviously, you can't conclude anything definitively just using these numbers, but one could hazard a guess that the attendance boost the Twins got from winning, was offset buy the Brewers' new park, and that the Brewers are now riding somewhat of a double boost as they have a good team and a good park. Meanwhile the Twins have a good team and a bad park, which will soon be replaced by a good one.

That was a bit of a ramble, but I guess what I wanted to say was that while it is certainly possible that Milwaukee is more of a "baseball town" than Minneapolis/St. Paul, the attendance figures don't really show a huge difference between them, and even these can be skewed by other factors.

Historical attendance numbers
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Matt perfected this at 09/16/2008 10:04:49 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
09/17/2008 @ 01:41:46 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:00:21 PM
Although, they can give it the nickname, "The Bullseye". That's a pretty cool nickname for a stadium.


I was thinking the same thing. I think we should try and get it to stick.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
09/17/2008 @ 02:09:15 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:29:39 PM
retractable roof is the way to go. It adds expense, but it definitely is worth it over the long haul for the very reason Jeremy mentioned and more. Baseball was supposed to be played outdoors, but when it rains or is really cold, you should be able to account for that. Enter the sliding roof.


While I'm very much in favor of a roof, the thing I noticed at Miller Park was that even with the roof open, it still almost felt like you were inside a building. Since I'm one of the few who don't mind the Metrodome, this isn't a problem for me, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
09/17/2008 @ 07:58:36 AM
 Quote this comment
Hey Matt- when you compare the attendence to the overall population of the area (Metro versus what, county?) how does it stack up?

I ask because there was a game down south, I think Atlanta, where only 6000 showed up for an MLB game. the Chippewa Valley could do that for a Predators game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
09/17/2008 @ 10:04:58 AM
 Quote this comment
disregard
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 09/17/2008 10:05:13 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 10:23:27 AM
 Quote this comment
The Minneapolis/St. Paul/St. Cloud Combined Statistical Area has a population of about 3.5 million people, while the Milwaukee/Racine/Waukesha CSA has a population of about 1.7 million.

The Milwaukee area, however, doesn't include the Madison area (which is about the same distance from Milwaukee that St. Cloud is from the Twin Cities). Add the Madison Metropolitan Statistical Area in and you get a total of around 2.3 million. The CSA also doesn't include Kenosha which is only about 30 miles away, yet is considered as part of "Chicagoland". Add this in, as well as maybe Janesville/Beloit and you're at around 2.5 million.

So, this gives the Twins about a 1 million person advantage, at least among the "Greater Metro Areas" of the two teams. There are a few factors that would probably reduce this advantage somewhat, but I'm not sure how much.

1. The Milwaukee numbers don't include any people who live in the Chicago/Northern Illinois area that are certainly within easy driving distance to Milwaukee (the Minneapolis CSA does, however, include Wisconsin's Pierce and St. Croix counties).

2. It looks to me like Minnesota has a much higher percentage of its population living near the Twin Cities (about 3.5 million of 5.2 million) than Wisconsin does to Milwaukee (about 2.5 million of 5.6 million). This likely means that the Brewers could expect more fans to show up from outside the Metro area, than the Twins do.

Notes:

I basically just used the numbers I could find on Wikipedia and some of the references found therein. Since some of the numbers were probably based on different years or estimations, I used rough approximations and so the ultimate figures may be a little off.

The official Twin Cities metro area seems to be a larger area land wise that Milwaukee's, so that's why I tried to compensate by adding in Madison and Kenosha.

Bud Selig putting the Brewers in the same division of the Cubs, certainly gives the Brewers a slight attendance boost.


To sum up, it would seem that the Twins should have a bit of an advantage in drawing fans to the park based on metro area population. However, due to limitations with the data, definitions of metro areas, and other factors, its hard to really know how much (if any) of an advantage it really gives the Twins.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Matt perfected this at 09/17/2008 10:24:48 am
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 10:26:39 AM
 Quote this comment
Here's the thing about the roof. I'm really bummed about not having one. But also, I feel uneasy complaining about it. It is somewhat of a luxury item.
Plus, I can't really fault the politicians and citizens for not wanting to pay for it. I can be angry at the Twins ownership for not dishing out the money, but I really don't know if that's totally fair, because I'm not sure if it's technically worth it from their standpoint. We could rationalize that they're rich and they should do it for the fans and all that, but it's always easier to feel that way about someone else's money.

On a slightly different note, Miller Park's retractable roof isn't exactly the poster child for the greatness of retractable roofs. They've already had some pretty serious repairs to do, and that's not cheap. Plus, according to wikipedia, the huge shadows it casts have made it quite difficult to keep the grass in good condition, even to the point of seriously considering using artificial turf.

Maybe these are one time problems with simple solutions, but with giant moving parts like they have, I wouldn't exactly be surprised if the continued maintenence becomes costly/annoying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
09/17/2008 @ 10:41:46 AM
 Quote this comment
While "The Bullseye" is sort of cool sounding, it's ultimately not much shorter than the real name, which isn't a prerequisite, but it's a somewhat big "con."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 11:21:32 AM
 Quote this comment
Thanks Matt, exactly what I was after!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 11:23:17 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:18:24 PM
Umm, I'm not sure that has anything to do with what I said, and I was not in any way pointing to this season as my sample. My point was that Milwaukee is a baseball town, and you put a winning team there and there's going to be people in the stands County Stadium was packed in the early 80s and early 90s when the team was good. The Twins have been near the top of their division for about 5 or 6 years now and you would think they were the on par with the Devil Rays based on their attendance. That what I was saying. Even when the Twins ARE good they don't seem draw much of a crowd, even with tickets for like $10.

Seriously that was not one of your better points. "Dig aside" basically just led to more dig.


My point was that your thought that the "longer a team is good, the more of a draw they are," isn't how people work. People become complacent either way. It's the rise from suckage to "Hey, we have a shot this year" that normally draws the fans, which is what the Brewers are still in the midst of. Add to this the fact that the Brewers are more likely than not going to be without their two best pitchers next season and there's a "do or die" attitude that helps draw people in even more. I don't see how that's a "dig." If the Brewers were a good team year in year out people would stop caring as much, and if anything it has the potential to work against you. Expectations go up and people get just as fed up that the team can't make it over the hump to the "next" level. If the Brewers have good seasons for the next 10 years but just miss the playoffs, never quite win the division, or get bounced early every season, no one is going to give a crap that they played "better than .500," which was the gold standard for a "successful" Brewers season over the previous decade.

Everytime I see Marlins highlights there's like 4 people there. Maybe Florida isn't a baseball area. Maybe baseball is just competing with too much there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 09/17/2008 11:26:20 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 11:38:43 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, it's sort of unfair to look at these expansion teams and compare their following to the Yankees of the world. Is it really THAT surprising? If your home city got an NFL franchise would you stop rooting for your favorite NFL team? Really the people they hope to cater to are the people who didn't care enough about football BEFORE to have ever picked a team, which is an odd market to go after. To expect people to go "well, I guess this is my team now" just because you dropped a stadium in their back yard, and then be upset when you don't have instant fanatical, painted-face, support is a bit unreasonable.

The market that eventually pays off are the kids who don't have "a team" yet and grow up loving the Rays, and have kids of their own who are likely to be Rays fans. That takes time though.

They might also eventually convert some people who have a team already. If Eau Claire got an MLB team I would be a "Bunyan" well wisher and over time that might grow into the dreaded "Two favorite team" phenomenon and before long you couldn't help but follow one team more than your old favorite because you're right there, and after a while you have a new favorite. Either way it takes time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
09/17/2008 @ 12:02:47 PM
 Quote this comment
If we ever get an NFL team that represents Minnesota I will let you know exactly how I feel, Jeremy.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 09/17/2008 12:03:00 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
09/17/2008 @ 12:05:26 PM
 Quote this comment
That doesn't make sense on a couple levels, but I'm sure you'll get 4 5 nut ratings for it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
09/17/2008 @ 12:12:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:09:15 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:29:39 PM
retractable roof is the way to go. It adds expense, but it definitely is worth it over the long haul for the very reason Jeremy mentioned and more. Baseball was supposed to be played outdoors, but when it rains or is really cold, you should be able to account for that. Enter the sliding roof.
While I'm very much in favor of a roof, the thing I noticed at Miller Park was that even with the roof open, it still almost felt like you were inside a building. Since I'm one of the few who don't mind the Metrodome, this isn't a problem for me, but I thought I'd throw it out there.


I was thinking the exact opposite. I always felt that with the roof CLOSED, it still felt like an open air stadium.

And Florida is not a baseball area. Marlins never draw anyone. Of course, they go from First to Worst very rapidly. both times they won the world series, they went almost to the bottom of the league soon after that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
09/17/2008 @ 12:24:21 PM
 Quote this comment
It makes perfect sense- it's a dig at the Vikings. What doesn't make sense?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
09/17/2008 @ 12:26:27 PM
 Quote this comment
It's not your hometown for one.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
09/17/2008 @ 12:29:16 PM
 Quote this comment
It is now. I live here!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
09/17/2008 @ 01:10:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:41:46 AM
While "The Bullseye" is sort of cool sounding, it's ultimately not much shorter than the real name, which isn't a prerequisite, but it's a somewhat big "con."


I think the key word here is "sort of"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/17/2008 @ 03:37:11 PM
 Quote this comment
The key word is "totally" (not actually there, implied"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
09/17/2008 @ 05:13:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Should we buy playoff tickets? (See how I'm asking everyone Matt?)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Well you can get this lapdance here for free.
09/17/2008 @ 10:57:31 PM
 Quote this comment
The larger unaddressed question is what will they call the Dome Dog?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne messed with this at 09/17/2008 10:57:44 pm
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
09/19/2008 @ 09:48:28 PM
 Quote this comment
The Bull Dog? (like "bullseye" dog).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/19/2008 @ 09:52:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 09/17/2008 @ 11:26:39 AM
Here's the thing about the roof. I'm really bummed about not having one. But also, I feel uneasy complaining about it. It is somewhat of a luxury item. Plus, I can't really fault the politicians and citizens for not wanting to pay for it. I can be angry at the Twins ownership for not dishing out the money, but I really don't know if that's totally fair, because I'm not sure if it's technically worth it from their standpoint. We could rationalize that they're rich and they should do it for the fans and all that, but it's always easier to feel that way about someone else's money. On a slightly different note, Miller Park's retractable roof isn't exactly the poster child for the greatness of retractable roofs. They've already had some pretty serious repairs to do, and that's not cheap. Plus, according to wikipedia, the huge shadows it casts have made it quite difficult to keep the grass in good condition, even to the point of seriously considering using artificial turf. Maybe these are one time problems with simple solutions, but with giant moving parts like they have, I wouldn't exactly be surprised if the continued maintenence becomes costly/annoying.


It has been said that Miller Park is "one of a kind", and what they mean by that is that design will never be attempted again. I think the repairs to the roof were somewhat of a onetime thing, it hasn't come up for some time now. Of course when you drop a giant panel and kill three workers during the building process, that can't be a sign of good fortune to come.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/19/2008 9:59:29 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/19/2008 @ 09:58:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 09/16/2008 @ 12:49:37 PM
I'm more worried about the lack of nickname potential. The Targ? The Get? Edit: I'm also not looking forward to the million times we're going to hear someone do the "Fancy"/Foreign "Targé" pronunciation that people who think they're funny do.


How many stadiums actually have nicknames anyway?

There's the various nicknames for the Metrodome, The Trop (Tropicana Field), The Diamondbacks former name "the BOB" (Bank One Ball Park), anyone have any others they can think of?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
09/20/2008 @ 04:21:28 AM
 Quote this comment
"The Cell" - U.S. Cellular Field
"The Jake" - Progressive Field (formerly Jacobs Field)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
09/20/2008 @ 06:37:46 AM
 Quote this comment
Back to the discussion of comparing attendence between Milwaukee and Minnesota. I don't remember what ticket prices were like at County Stadium, but I am pretty sure that the Metrodome ticket prices are notably lower than tickets at Miller Park. The cheapest SEATS you can get at Miller Park are $17 or $15 for standing room only seats. Aren't most of the outfield seats at the Dome $12?

Just thought I'd bring that up.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
09/20/2008 @ 04:54:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 09/17/2008 @ 11:23:27 AM
The Minneapolis/St. Paul/St. Cloud Combined Statistical Area has a population of about 3.5 million people, while the Milwaukee/Racine/Waukesha CSA has a population of about 1.7 million. The Milwaukee area, however, doesn't include the Madison area (which is about the same distance from Milwaukee that St. Cloud is from the Twin Cities). Add the Madison Metropolitan Statistical Area in and you get a total of around 2.3 million. The CSA also doesn't include Kenosha which is only about 30 miles away, yet is considered as part of "Chicagoland". Add this in, as well as maybe Janesville/Beloit and you're at around 2.5 million. So, this gives the Twins about a 1 million person advantage, at least among the "Greater Metro Areas" of the two teams. There are a few factors that would probably reduce this advantage somewhat, but I'm not sure how much. 1. The Milwaukee numbers don't include any people who live in the Chicago/Northern Illinois area that are certainly within easy driving distance to Milwaukee (the Minneapolis CSA does, however, include Wisconsin's Pierce and St. Croix counties). 2. It looks to me like Minnesota has a much higher percentage of its population living near the Twin Cities (about 3.5 million of 5.2 million) than Wisconsin does to Milwaukee (about 2.5 million of 5.6 million). This likely means that the Brewers could expect more fans to show up from outside the Metro area, than the Twins do. Notes: I basically just used the numbers I could find on Wikipedia and some of the references found therein. Since some of the numbers were probably based on different years or estimations, I used rough approximations and so the ultimate figures may be a little off. The official Twin Cities metro area seems to be a larger area land wise that Milwaukee's, so that's why I tried to compensate by adding in Madison and Kenosha. Bud Selig putting the Brewers in the same division of the Cubs, certainly gives the Brewers a slight attendance boost. To sum up, it would seem that the Twins should have a bit of an advantage in drawing fans to the park based on metro area population. However, due to limitations with the data, definitions of metro areas, and other factors, its hard to really know how much (if any) of an advantage it really gives the Twins.


I think it could be a reasonible arguement that being near Chicago could actually hurt Milwaukee's fan base/draw. The fact that the Brewers are competing for fans with TWO teams less than 90 miles away, both of which are pretty strong fan bases, can't exactly be good. Their are probably way more cubs fans in Milwaukee than there are Brewer fans in Milwaukee. On the other hand, the Twins have no one to compete with really. There is no other team within 240 miles. And while the volume of people may be debatable as far as which area technically has more, the Brewers are one of 3 teams potentially fighting over part of the same fan base, while the Twins are all alone.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/20/2008 @ 05:09:40 PM
 Quote this comment
While we're on the topic of stadiums, I'll say this: Tropicana Field is no gem. It is very dark on the inside as far as domed stadiums go. The seats are too small (even for a guy my size). There are 4 catwalks that form concentric circles above the playing field, two of which are in play and occasionally cause havoc. The stadium is LOUD. It has some of the properties of a high school swim meet when attending a game. With 10,000 people in the stands the place can sound like a sold out park during the playoffs (it's rather hard to describe, but this isn't a good thing). There is so much echo. On top of that, fans feel the need to bring cow bells to the game (even the stadium media guide specifically says that noise makers are prohibited; the prohibition on beach balls is actually enforced), which even more makes you feel at times like you are at some sort of high school event. I've been to 4 Rays games this year and for the most part I've enjoyed myself (of course I did, how do you not enjoy yourself at a baseball game). I just wouldn't put Tropicana field on my list of ball parks worth seeing. There is currently debate in the Tampa Bay area about building a new stadium for the Rays. The first proposal had a retractible canvas roof, but it failed for public financing and other reasons.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
09/21/2008 @ 12:14:11 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:54:50 PM
Matt Wrote - 09/17/2008 @ 10:23:27 AM
The Minneapolis/St. Paul/St. Cloud Combined Statistical Area has a population of about 3.5 million people, while the Milwaukee/Racine/Waukesha CSA has a population of about 1.7 million. The Milwaukee area, however, doesn't include the Madison area (which is about the same distance from Milwaukee that St. Cloud is from the Twin Cities). Add the Madison Metropolitan Statistical Area in and you get a total of around 2.3 million. The CSA also doesn't include Kenosha which is only about 30 miles away, yet is considered as part of "Chicagoland". Add this in, as well as maybe Janesville/Beloit and you're at around 2.5 million. So, this gives the Twins about a 1 million person advantage, at least among the "Greater Metro Areas" of the two teams. There are a few factors that would probably reduce this advantage somewhat, but I'm not sure how much. 1. The Milwaukee numbers don't include any people who live in the Chicago/Northern Illinois area that are certainly within easy driving distance to Milwaukee (the Minneapolis CSA does, however, include Wisconsin's Pierce and St. Croix counties). 2. It looks to me like Minnesota has a much higher percentage of its population living near the Twin Cities (about 3.5 million of 5.2 million) than Wisconsin does to Milwaukee (about 2.5 million of 5.6 million). This likely means that the Brewers could expect more fans to show up from outside the Metro area, than the Twins do. Notes: I basically just used the numbers I could find on Wikipedia and some of the references found therein. Since some of the numbers were probably based on different years or estimations, I used rough approximations and so the ultimate figures may be a little off. The official Twin Cities metro area seems to be a larger area land wise that Milwaukee's, so that's why I tried to compensate by adding in Madison and Kenosha. Bud Selig putting the Brewers in the same division of the Cubs, certainly gives the Brewers a slight attendance boost. To sum up, it would seem that the Twins should have a bit of an advantage in drawing fans to the park based on metro area population. However, due to limitations with the data, definitions of metro areas, and other factors, its hard to really know how much (if any) of an advantage it really gives the Twins.


I think it could be a reasonible arguement that being near Chicago could actually hurt Milwaukee's fan base/draw. The fact that the Brewers are competing for fans with TWO teams less than 90 miles away, both of which are pretty strong fan bases, can't exactly be good. Their are probably way more cubs fans in Milwaukee than there are Brewer fans in Milwaukee. On the other hand, the Twins have no one to compete with really. There is no other team within 240 miles. And while the volume of people may be debatable as far as which area technically has more, the Brewers are one of 3 teams potentially fighting over part of the same fan base, while the Twins are all alone.


The close rivalry itself can also fuel the fanaticism.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
09/21/2008 @ 06:49:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:14:11 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:54:50 PM
Matt Wrote - 09/17/2008 @ 11:23:27 AM
The Minneapolis/St. Paul/St. Cloud Combined Statistical Area has a population of about 3.5 million people, while the Milwaukee/Racine/Waukesha CSA has a population of about 1.7 million. The Milwaukee area, however, doesn't include the Madison area (which is about the same distance from Milwaukee that St. Cloud is from the Twin Cities). Add the Madison Metropolitan Statistical Area in and you get a total of around 2.3 million. The CSA also doesn't include Kenosha which is only about 30 miles away, yet is considered as part of "Chicagoland". Add this in, as well as maybe Janesville/Beloit and you're at around 2.5 million. So, this gives the Twins about a 1 million person advantage, at least among the "Greater Metro Areas" of the two teams. There are a few factors that would probably reduce this advantage somewhat, but I'm not sure how much. 1. The Milwaukee numbers don't include any people who live in the Chicago/Northern Illinois area that are certainly within easy driving distance to Milwaukee (the Minneapolis CSA does, however, include Wisconsin's Pierce and St. Croix counties). 2. It looks to me like Minnesota has a much higher percentage of its population living near the Twin Cities (about 3.5 million of 5.2 million) than Wisconsin does to Milwaukee (about 2.5 million of 5.6 million). This likely means that the Brewers could expect more fans to show up from outside the Metro area, than the Twins do. Notes: I basically just used the numbers I could find on Wikipedia and some of the references found therein. Since some of the numbers were probably based on different years or estimations, I used rough approximations and so the ultimate figures may be a little off. The official Twin Cities metro area seems to be a larger area land wise that Milwaukee's, so that's why I tried to compensate by adding in Madison and Kenosha. Bud Selig putting the Brewers in the same division of the Cubs, certainly gives the Brewers a slight attendance boost. To sum up, it would seem that the Twins should have a bit of an advantage in drawing fans to the park based on metro area population. However, due to limitations with the data, definitions of metro areas, and other factors, its hard to really know how much (if any) of an advantage it really gives the Twins.
I think it could be a reasonible arguement that being near Chicago could actually hurt Milwaukee's fan base/draw. The fact that the Brewers are competing for fans with TWO teams less than 90 miles away, both of which are pretty strong fan bases, can't exactly be good. Their are probably way more cubs fans in Milwaukee than there are Brewer fans in Milwaukee. On the other hand, the Twins have no one to compete with really. There is no other team within 240 miles. And while the volume of people may be debatable as far as which area technically has more, the Brewers are one of 3 teams potentially fighting over part of the same fan base, while the Twins are all alone.
The close rivalry itself can also fuel the fanaticism.


Could. In other words, the debate from many different angles is still out. But one of these points is objective (Milwaukee's proximity to Chicago and the competition for fans among 2 well established fan bases) and the other is subjective (the proximity could fuel the fanaticism). It would be harder to proove the latter, the former is already present.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 09/21/2008 6:50:45 am
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto
09/21/2008 @ 08:37:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Being close to Chicago guarantees a sell out everytime the Brewers play the Cubs. So I don't think "competing" with Chicago hurts them at all. Bud Selig knew he would be helping them by moving them to the NL and creating the rivalry with the Cubs. Yes the Twins have a four state fan base, but Minneapolis-St.Paul is really the only large metro area in that fan base. When you add in the Twins horrible stadium, the Brewers are better off. Can't wait till 2010.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
09/21/2008 @ 04:48:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 09/19/2008 @ 09:48:28 PM
The Bull Dog? (like "bullseye" dog).


His name is Spot, I believe. Meagen works for corporate.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
09/21/2008 @ 06:13:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 05:48:07 PM
Scott Wrote - 09/19/2008 @ 10:48:28 PM
The Bull Dog? (like "bullseye" dog).
His name is Spot, I believe. Meagen works for corporate.


No, the Bull Dog would be teh new name for the Dome Dog.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
09/21/2008 @ 09:06:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Ah, I see.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
09/27/2008 @ 12:05:25 AM
 Quote this comment
http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/seat_view.jsp

Cool simulated views from different seats at the new park. Plus they show some prices for season tickets, which hopefully are not too far off compared to single game tickets, and a fair portion of seats are only 10 bucks and there are about an equal number of others that are 12 dollars.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 09/27/2008 12:07:40 am
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
09/29/2008 @ 07:29:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 09/16/2008 @ 11:03:33 PM
Actually, a quick glance at the numbers shows that the attendance for the Twins and Brewers have been pretty similar over the past 20-25 years despite the fact that most people concede that the Dome is an awful baseball stadium. Both teams have their ups and downs that coincide somewhat with how well the team is doing. Now, in 2001, Miller Park opened and the Twins also started to get good. The Brewers got a huge attendance boost in 2001, then it dipped, and now their numbers are growing again these past few years that they have shown some life. Meanwhile the Twins attendance has been steadily growing during this time as the Twins have been good (and as people start to get interested again after the awfulness of Twins baseball in the late 90's, as well as getting over their anger towards Pohlad and his refusal to spend any money). If you look at the numbers, from 2002-2006 the Twins and Brewers attendance numbers were essentially the same, with the Brewers pulling ahead in '07 and '08. Obviously, you can't conclude anything definitively just using these numbers, but one could hazard a guess that the attendance boost the Twins got from winning, was offset buy the Brewers' new park, and that the Brewers are now riding somewhat of a double boost as they have a good team and a good park. Meanwhile the Twins have a good team and a bad park, which will soon be replaced by a good one. That was a bit of a ramble, but I guess what I wanted to say was that while it is certainly possible that Milwaukee is more of a "baseball town" than Minneapolis/St. Paul, the attendance figures don't really show a huge difference between them, and even these can be skewed by other factors. Historical attendance numbers


1965 Minnesota Twins win make it to but lose the World Series; total attendance: 1,463,258
1957 Milwaukee Braves win World Series; total attendance: 2,215,404

Both teams had recently moved from other locations (Braves from Boston, the Twins from Washington)

*just a note on the Braves attendance in 1962-1965: They were bought out in 1962, then announced prior to the 1964 season that they would move to Atlanta following that year; however, due to a court decision, they were forced to play in Milwaukee for the 1965 seasons. In other words, in 1964 and 1965, the Milwaukee fans were basically aware that their team was leaving, and it was two tumultuos seasons.

Also on a note, it was a little unfair for Matt to compare the last 25 seasons between the Brewers and Twins from a fans standpoint. The Twins won 2 World Series titles during that time.

**Another note: I don't think there is a baseball stat that I couldn't spend hours analyzing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 09/30/2008 11:25:09 am
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
09/29/2008 @ 09:17:27 PM
 Quote this comment
The Twins didn't win the 1965 World Series, they lost to Koufax and the Dodgers. This was the Series when Koufax refused to pitch Game One because it fell on Yom Kippur. He started Game Two instead and lost, although he pitched pretty well. With the Series tied 2 games apiece, Koufax threw a four-hit shutout (10 Ks, 1 BB) in Game Five, and followed that with a three-hit shutout (10 Ks, 3 BB) on two days rest in Game Seven to win the World Series.

Now, back to the matter at hand. I'm not sure that 50 year old attendance figures prove as much as you seem to believe they do. Also, I focused on the past 20-25 years, because you had commented about the Brewers drawing crowds in the 80s and 90s when they were good. Even with that, I focused mainly on the past decade or so, since the longer you go back, the less relevant the data means to the current situation.

As to the Twins winning two World Championships, in my original post, I mentioned that the numbers were similar, taking into account the ups and downs in attendance due to good and bad years. Also, the last Championship was in 1991, so I think any boost they got from that wore off by the mid to late 90s when they were a pretty bad team.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/29/2008 @ 09:24:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:29:30 PM
*just a note on the Braves attendance in 1962-1965: They were bought out in 1962, then announced prior to the 1964 season that they would move to Atlanta following that year; however, due to a court decision, they were forced to play in Milwaukee for the 1965 seasons. In other words, in 1964 and 1965, the Milwaukee fans were basically aware that their team was leaving, and it was two tumultuos seasons


So, in other words, they drew big numbers during another "now or never" situation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
09/30/2008 @ 10:46:24 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:24:28 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:29:30 PM
*just a note on the Braves attendance in 1962-1965: They were bought out in 1962, then announced prior to the 1964 season that they would move to Atlanta following that year; however, due to a court decision, they were forced to play in Milwaukee for the 1965 seasons. In other words, in 1964 and 1965, the Milwaukee fans were basically aware that their team was leaving, and it was two tumultuos seasons
So, in other words, they drew big numbers during another "now or never" situation.


What?

edit, I realized that Jeremy (without looking) probably thought that these years were packed houses. The reason I put this note in here was because the attendance was rock bottom during these years (never reaching 1 million fans). I figured this inner front office turmoil distorted the attendance thing.

As far as Matt's comment, I'm probably just throwing punches needlessly. I just happened to bring this subject up with my dad and the first thing he thought of just from memory was the difference between the 57 world series and the 65 world series.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 09/30/2008 6:19:58 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
09/30/2008 @ 10:55:14 AM
 Quote this comment
Oh, I see. I got confused by the two different uses of 1965.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
10/02/2008 @ 10:44:31 PM
 Quote this comment
I like how nutcan always leaves you where you left off the last time you left.

Yeah, that's a weird thing to say here.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
10/03/2008 @ 09:40:17 AM
 Quote this comment
So what precisely does that mean?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
05/16/2009 @ 05:41:53 AM
 Quote this comment
Here's an article I enjoyed. It's got interesting info on the new park. I found it interesting at least. I really got a kick out of the part about the sod near the end.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090515&content_id=4750462&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
05/16/2009 @ 08:13:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Today @ 06:41:53 AM
Here's an article I enjoyed. It's got interesting info on the new park. I found it interesting at least. I really got a kick out of the part about the sod near the end. http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090515&content_id=4750462&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min


They now need to answer two questions: did the Colorado Sod pass the test for the Minnesota Stadium?; and does sod travel well?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto
08/04/2009 @ 06:50:49 AM
 Quote this comment
The grass is nearing installation at Target Field. Updated photos are on the Twins website as well. Interesting that they went with green seats rather than something like navy or red from the Twins color scheme.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/index.jsp
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
08/05/2009 @ 08:11:09 AM
 Quote this comment
Green must be a color that remains relatively cool in the sun. Maybe I just made that up though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
08/05/2009 @ 02:13:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Tell me that in early April
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
08/05/2009 @ 03:37:03 PM
 Quote this comment
I can't find anything definitive, but I assume it just has to do with a more "classic" look. (And, to a letter extent, differentiate more from the Dome.) Twins blue would be awfully dark for seats in the summer, and I don't think red is a primary enough Twins color to pull off red seats.

Edit: Also, I look at the webcam fairly often, and I just noticed that the Target center is also getting a turf put in. Don't that beat all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 08/05/2009 3:44:01 pm
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
08/05/2009 @ 05:27:15 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm sure this wasn't at all their aim, but red or bright seats are really really obvious when they are empty. When you watch a Marlins game, you can see the bright orange seats glaring all over the place. I don't think it's quite as obvious that seats aren't filled when they are a darker, not so bright color. I guess all that does is make it look not quite so empty on TV if the game isn't a sell out or something. Again, I'm probably making this up too, but that's my impression.

Edit: In other words, red is an obnoxious color in such a large volume as some 40,000 seats, and it would have a tendency of taking the eye off what people are actually at stadium, for the game.

Edit 2: I am in no way suggesting that the stadium is going to lack in attendance.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 08/05/2009 5:55:18 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
08/05/2009 @ 05:50:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Sun Studies. I think this came up before, but it's pretty neat to see where the shadows are going to be throught the day and at different times throughout the year. On thing I noticed is that Target Field is going to have pretty much the exact same "problem" that Miller Park has when the shadows come across the infield. Apparently Target Field has a gap between the canopy and top level of seats that causes a streak of light to get through in between two big shadows. So after the initial shadow crosses the infield and crosses the pitcher, another streak of light crosses the infield before the field is completely overtaken by the shadows. Just remember this for those of you that referred to the same thing in Miller Park as "distracting" and "inexcusable".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott edited this at 08/05/2009 6:02:57 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
08/05/2009 @ 07:45:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Well "shadows coming across the infield" are inevitable. A shadow down the middle of the infield that's so ever-present that it's hard to grow grass evenly, and where the lack of sun on the first base side is apparently turning Price Fielder into a crazy person, is a bit different. Also, by my rough estimate the shadows don't seem to be a big nuisance when it matters most. (12-4 and 6-10) With the exception of around 4 in September.

Thanks for the link tough, those are really cool.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 08/05/2009 7:45:29 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
08/05/2009 @ 08:26:32 PM
 Quote this comment
It would be really cool to see other parks with that same "shadowy" graphic, just to get a good idea. Ah, modern technology. I think this computer thing is really going to take off.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
08/06/2009 @ 03:57:10 AM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - 08/04/2009 @ 06:50:49 AM
The grass is nearing installation at Target Field. Updated photos are on the Twins website as well. Interesting that they went with green seats rather than something like navy or red from the Twins color scheme.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/index.jsp


In the gallery from 7/1, there's a view of the Target Center in the background. It occurred to me that the Target Center is probably the only building that looks the same in real life as it does with GoogleEarth's first version of 3-D buildings.

As for the seats, it always struck me that the empty blue seats in the metrodome really made the lack of crowd stand out on tv. Part of that might be the angle they are at and the artificial lighting too. Green seems to be the seat color of choice and doesn't really attract the eye in a negative way. Plus it matches the grass, so it will always look good. Plus the snow will make everything white, so it won't matter.

Also, I have to say, I looked at that sun study thing a while back and didn't think it was anything. I mean it's interesting, but didn't really tell me anything other than there will be sun and there will be shadows. I think it's cool that they did it, but I guess it wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be. I viewed it again. Basically the same reaction. But I did have one observation: Does the sun really shine that little in October? We need to all move. Scott, make up your guest room.

I guess it is cool though to see if your seats will be in the shade though. I know when we were going to Busch, I was looking at pictures on the website for the view from our seats and took note of the outfield seats getting some shade during the day, so it is the kind of thing that has practical use.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 08/06/2009 4:03:17 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
08/14/2009 @ 05:31:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 08/06/2009 @ 04:57:10 AM
jthompto Wrote - 08/04/2009 @ 07:50:49 AM
The grass is nearing installation at Target Field. Updated photos are on the Twins website as well. Interesting that they went with green seats rather than something like navy or red from the Twins color scheme. http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/index.jsp
Also, I have to say, I looked at that sun study thing a while back and didn't think it was anything. I mean it's interesting, but didn't really tell me anything other than there will be sun and there will be shadows. I think it's cool that they did it, but I guess it wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be. I viewed it again. Basically the same reaction. But I did have one observation: Does the sun really shine that little in October? We need to all move. Scott, make up your guest room.


It should be noted that in the Summer, Minneapolis gets about 1 hour more sunlight during the day than in Tampa. Just remember that in early July when it's 7:00 and you still need your sunglasses and hat.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
08/14/2009 @ 07:55:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:31:40 PM
Jon Wrote - 08/06/2009 @ 03:57:10 AM
jthompto Wrote - 08/04/2009 @ 06:50:49 AM
The grass is nearing installation at Target Field. Updated photos are on the Twins website as well. Interesting that they went with green seats rather than something like navy or red from the Twins color scheme. http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/index.jsp
Also, I have to say, I looked at that sun study thing a while back and didn't think it was anything. I mean it's interesting, but didn't really tell me anything other than there will be sun and there will be shadows. I think it's cool that they did it, but I guess it wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be. I viewed it again. Basically the same reaction. But I did have one observation: Does the sun really shine that little in October? We need to all move. Scott, make up your guest room.


It should be noted that in the Summer, Minneapolis gets about 1 hour more sunlight during the day than in Tampa. Just remember that in early July when it's 7:00 and you still need your sunglasses and hat.


I think we'll all manage somehow.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
08/14/2009 @ 09:47:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 08:55:10 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:31:40 PM
Jon Wrote - 08/06/2009 @ 04:57:10 AM
jthompto Wrote - 08/04/2009 @ 07:50:49 AM
The grass is nearing installation at Target Field. Updated photos are on the Twins website as well. Interesting that they went with green seats rather than something like navy or red from the Twins color scheme. http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/index.jsp
Also, I have to say, I looked at that sun study thing a while back and didn't think it was anything. I mean it's interesting, but didn't really tell me anything other than there will be sun and there will be shadows. I think it's cool that they did it, but I guess it wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be. I viewed it again. Basically the same reaction. But I did have one observation: Does the sun really shine that little in October? We need to all move. Scott, make up your guest room.


It should be noted that in the Summer, Minneapolis gets about 1 hour more sunlight during the day than in Tampa. Just remember that in early July when it's 7:00 and you still need your sunglasses and hat.


I think we'll all manage somehow.


That wasn't a knock on the abundance of sun.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/13/2009 @ 05:01:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's a scale representation of the Target Field scoreboard. I was talking about this with my brother the other day, and then Carl a couple days ago. It's really staggering when you see the scale of things compared, I made something like this a while back just so I could get a sense for myself, then I never posted.

1 pixel = 1 inch

target_field_scoreboard.png
[Click to Enlarge]


Edit: Just so it's clear, that's one of the color Dome scoreboards. Also, you'd have to look at the full image for the 1 pixel = 1 inch scale, but the popup still shows their relative sizes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 10/13/2009 5:06:05 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
10/14/2009 @ 07:54:17 AM
 Quote this comment
what are they using for connections, component, HDMI, or "something really cool that I don't even know about"?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
10/14/2009 @ 07:59:13 AM
 Quote this comment
Can you compare that to Miller Park's scoreboard?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
10/14/2009 @ 08:18:38 AM
 Quote this comment
I did originally, but I remember the size was hard to find.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/14/2009 @ 08:43:44 AM
 Quote this comment
The only numbers available are the size of the advertising slots on the board, so I had to do some scale assumptions of my own. No word yet on how big Miller Park's new scoreboard will be.

target_field_scoreboard.png
[Click to Enlarge]
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
10/14/2009 @ 11:29:14 AM
 Quote this comment
I didn't even know Miller Park was getting a new scoreboard.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/14/2009 @ 11:36:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, and it will be in place for next season, which is why it's weird no one knows anything about it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3355 Posts
11/16/2009 @ 06:47:29 PM
 Quote this comment
A pretty nice video tour of Target Field from Minnesota Public Radio (although one has to wonder if the effect was lost on the listeners).

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2009/11/13-target-field-tour/index.shtml
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto - 209 Posts
11/16/2009 @ 09:23:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Twins unveiled new uniforms today.

http://www.startribune.com/local/70201392.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
11/16/2009 @ 09:41:06 PM
 Quote this comment
I like the retro Saturday home game uniforms. They look pretty snazzy.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/16/2009 @ 09:50:15 PM
 Quote this comment
I like the road uniforms with the script "Minnesota". They managed to to "update" the uniforms while keeping sort of a classic look. They aren't too "modernized" like new NFL jerseys are becoming, and they aren't so intentionally old school as to become re-outdated in 5 years. I give the Twins a pat on the back for this move.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
02/26/2010 @ 12:37:26 AM
 Quote this comment
No more dome dogs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
02/26/2010 @ 05:50:39 AM
 Quote this comment
The lack of a dome should have tipped us all off earlier than this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
02/26/2010 @ 06:41:35 AM
 Quote this comment
I was going to post something about that. Tragic really.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
02/26/2010 @ 10:00:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:50:39 AM
The lack of a dome should have tipped us all off earlier than this.


Well, for one I doubt that carry-over/throwback names are all that unheard of, but either way it's news that Hormel is going away, so that same hot dog won't be there under any name. Also, no more Hormel Row of Fame, and I was getting so close to finally winning it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
02/28/2010 @ 07:15:55 PM
 Quote this comment
There's a tour bus leaving from Eau Claire on May 23rd. For 69 bucks you get a ride and a ticket to the Twins/Brewers game @ Target Field.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
03/01/2010 @ 07:48:15 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:15:55 PM
There's a tour bus leaving from Eau Claire on May 23rd. For 69 bucks you get a ride and a ticket to the Twins/Brewers game @ Target Field.


cheap seats, I assume?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
03/01/2010 @ 10:38:20 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:15:55 PM
There's a tour bus leaving from Eau Claire on May 23rd. For 69 bucks you get a ride and a ticket to the Twins/Brewers game @ Target Field.


When you told me about this I assumed you meant to Miller Park, I'd just assume we control our schedule if you're talking about that short of a drive.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/01/2010 10:40:57 am
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
03/02/2010 @ 11:30:45 PM
 Quote this comment


I hope it's not Klement's that gets the new contract. Miller Park dogs are terrible. (I'd rather get the chicken strips and fries. They're a steal for ball park prices!)

It's interesting that Hormel won't be the company. It seems like the Twins have made effort to get a lot of local ties in, and Hormel is a Minnesota company. Not that I care, it's just what came to mind. So there must be a good reason for parting ways. I do enjoy the dome dog, but I think there will be plenty of good stuff. Those other sausages sound good and are made fresh right in the neighborhood.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this at 03/02/2010 11:31:10 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/03/2010 @ 06:37:06 AM
 Quote this comment
To me, the food at a ball park is a 100% non-factor. The whole point of going to a baseball game is the tailgating before the game. I don't think I've ever gotten a hot dog at Miller Park, and I've been there probably 10 times or so.

edit: ok, so maybe not 100% a non-issue, but it's pretty close. If someone were to tell me that a stadium was not a good one because the food was bad, it would be like someone telling me a car was a bad car because windows were tinted; the presence of tinted windows (or non-tinted windows) in no way factors into my decision to buy a car. Also, at Miller Park you can bring in your own food, so I'm not going to pay $4 or more for a hotdog or anything else for that matter if I can help it. If anything, the fact that you can bring in your own food should rank Miller Park highly on the food scale.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 03/03/2010 6:44:56 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/05/2010 @ 10:34:01 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 03/03/2010 @ 06:37:06 AM
Also, at Miller Park you can bring in your own food, so I'm not going to pay $4 or more for a hotdog or anything else for that matter if I can help it. If anything, the fact that you can bring in your own food should rank Miller Park highly on the food scale.


Outside of little league games I had never heard of this, especially on the pro level. They practically pat you down for food at the metrodome. It's fairly easy to sneak in smaller items, unless you drop your stash right in front of the guy, but you could hardly get a meal in.

When we met Alex at miller park and he had a bag of items he was going to walk in with I was 90% sure it wasn't going to work, or he meant he was going to pull some sort of "OMG! What's that?!" and then when security was distracted slide his bag through the gate and then go through empty handed. Nope, they couldn't have cared less, and it was the same at Busch. People were walking in with big bags of McDonalds/Subway, water from elsewhere, and you name it.

I really hope Target Field follows suit, because there's actually some restaurants in the area now. There is something to be said for eating ballpark food as part of the experience, and dome dogs were really good.

I agree that if you're ranking ballparks, especially if food is a factor, that being allowed to bring in food should be a key component.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
03/05/2010 @ 12:09:29 PM
 Quote this comment
At Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, they don't even let you bring in water. Aside from capitalism and whatnot, this is just plain cruel, because in August and September, sitting in the stadium for a football game is can easily be mid 90s.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
03/05/2010 @ 02:13:49 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not sure we'll HAVE to, but maybe we should make a list of games we want to see in the first few months, prioritize it, and then buy a bunch of seats up front. The only thing we're out is all the money up front, and the potential that something might come up.

It's our best chance to get seats where we want though.

Edit: or maybe split the difference, say maybe it's the plan to see 2-3 games a month, we could buy the 2 games for the first month, and then one for the next few months, so at least we know we're seeing that many, and then play a few by ear, since I don't think it's going to be THAT hard to get tickets.

It's different because it's year one, but we did most of our ticket buying for last year's road trip on stubhub and didn't pay much more than face, even if it came to that. (I'm pretty sure we actually got some for cheaper than their face value for one of the Cards games.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 03/05/2010 2:33:02 pm
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
03/05/2010 @ 07:36:28 PM
 Quote this comment
http://www.twinkietown.com/2010/3/5/1359129/kfan-twins-mauer-signing-imminent?ref=yahoo

This weekend Mauer will be signed. Mark it down.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
03/05/2010 @ 10:09:15 PM
 Quote this comment


That's a crapton of money isn't it? Just a couple million short of Mark Teixeira's deal. Which I guess is reasonable in a way since Mauer is a little younger and plays (for now at least) a more valuable defensive position. But still.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
03/05/2010 @ 10:19:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Speaking of big contracts, I hope the Brewers can keep Fielder. I don't care if it takes all their money, I'd rather watch Braun & Fielder hit 3 & 4 regardless of what the rest of the lineup looks like than to spread the salary around if that's what it comes to. I feel like in the winning season/playoff excitement of the last couple years that Brewers fans might be under appreciating that combo a little.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4964711
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
03/06/2010 @ 06:52:35 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:19:53 PM
Speaking of big contracts, I hope the Brewers can keep Fielder. I don't care if it takes all their money, I'd rather watch Braun & Fielder hit 3 & 4 regardless of what the rest of the lineup looks like than to spread the salary around if that's what it comes to. I feel like in the winning season/playoff excitement of the last couple years that Brewers fans might be under appreciating that combo a little. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4964711


I am in total agreement with this. Sure it's a risk simply because of the large sum of money required to keep him, but you know what you have in Fielder. He's home grown, he hasn't had an off year yet, and he is still young. If the Brewers were ever going to take a risk on a big time contract, this would be the time. This has a very high potential payout, and the likelihood of bust seems very low. If you were willing to give CC a $20 mil/year contract, Fielder is worth the same. Plus, as Alex said, you want to put butts in the seats, keep the Matthew/Aaron, Yount/Molitor type combination together for at least 5 more years. You almost guarantee yourself success, and you will probably win over lifetime Brewer fans like never before. There is almost no downside to this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/06/2010 @ 06:59:52 AM
 Quote this comment


Golic sounds off about Zito Plunking Fielder.


There's something about the fact that the game was actually over at this point (on their home field no less) that makes me wonder why this was ever such a big deal. If they did this in the 3rd inning or something, yeah, that would be a big deal. What's the difference between what the Brewers did in this game and what teams usually do for a walk-off homerun; usually they all gather around home plate and jump around mob the hitter. Is this really any different? It probably took about 2 minutes for someone to say "hey, the next time we have walk-off homerun at home, lets do this. Maybe it's because I'm a Brewer fan (which I freely admit might be part of it), but the fact that the game was over at this point makes this seem as innocent as anything good be to get offended or upset about.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 03/06/2010 7:04:27 am
jon.jpgJon - many posts
03/06/2010 @ 03:55:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:52:35 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:19:53 PM
Speaking of big contracts, I hope the Brewers can keep Fielder. I don't care if it takes all their money, I'd rather watch Braun & Fielder hit 3 & 4 regardless of what the rest of the lineup looks like than to spread the salary around if that's what it comes to. I feel like in the winning season/playoff excitement of the last couple years that Brewers fans might be under appreciating that combo a little. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=4964711


I am in total agreement with this. Sure it's a risk simply because of the large sum of money required to keep him, but you know what you have in Fielder. He's home grown, he hasn't had an off year yet, and he is still young. If the Brewers were ever going to take a risk on a big time contract, this would be the time. This has a very high potential payout, and the likelihood of bust seems very low. ... There is almost no downside to this.


Yeah, it'd be cool for the Brewers, like the Twins, to be able to lock up their core guys. I will say, though, that I can think of one big risk for Fielder. I've said it before. He's a big guy. Players generally get a bit bigger over time and the body of a big guy can erode a little more quickly. He's young now, and doing the vegetarian thing and all (which could have it's downsides, too if not done well), but I'd be a bit concerned about his size over time. Especially since the Brewers probably won't be moving leagues again, so DH isn't an option. That said, the problems might not come until the end of a big contract, if ever, and every player has at least one potential risk that can make you nervous.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - many posts
03/06/2010 @ 04:12:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:59:52 AM


Golic sounds off about Zito Plunking Fielder.


There's something about the fact that the game was actually over at this point (on their home field no less) that makes me wonder why this was ever such a big deal. If they did this in the 3rd inning or something, yeah, that would be a big deal. What's the difference between what the Brewers did in this game and what teams usually do for a walk-off homerun; usually they all gather around home plate and jump around mob the hitter. Is this really any different? It probably took about 2 minutes for someone to say "hey, the next time we have walk-off homerun at home, lets do this. Maybe it's because I'm a Brewer fan (which I freely admit might be part of it), but the fact that the game was over at this point makes this seem as innocent as anything good be to get offended or upset about.


I was wondering if we'd be discussing this. I'm not big on throwing at people intentionally for any reason, so I'm against what Zito did on principle. But if you asked me whether what the Brewers did was the type of thing that I'd categorize with the rest of the stuff that does get people thrown at, I'd probably say yes. I actually agree that the setting being Miller Park tempers it a little. It was something fun for the fans. And it was the end of the game, so I imagine a number of the Giants weren't even on the field. But it does rub me the wrong way a bit. It's just a bit too cute; a bit too contrived. It's not a high crime against sportsmanship, but I'd rather see a team celebrate a bit more "naturally." And even though the game was over, the play really just ended at the moment Fielder hit the plate. And it all took place right then and there, so it was really about as close to being "during the game" as you could get without actually being during the game.

Edit: Also, this is really a topic for the main baseball thread. Don't bring your Miller Park junk into the Target field area!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this 2 times, last at 03/06/2010 4:16:33 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
03/09/2010 @ 12:32:46 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 03/02/2010 @ 11:30:45 PM


I hope it's not Klement's that gets the new contract. Miller Park dogs are terrible. (I'd rather get the chicken strips and fries. They're a steal for ball park prices!)

It's interesting that Hormel won't be the company. It seems like the Twins have made effort to get a lot of local ties in, and Hormel is a Minnesota company. Not that I care, it's just what came to mind. So there must be a good reason for parting ways. I do enjoy the dome dog, but I think there will be plenty of good stuff. Those other sausages sound good and are made fresh right in the neighborhood.


Looks like Schweigert will make the dogs at Target Field.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100308&content_id=8712418&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
03/11/2010 @ 01:55:28 PM
 Quote this comment


Jim Souhan: Is it time for Twins to ponder the unthinkable?
http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/87294197.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr&elr=KArksi8cyaiUqCP:iUiacyKUUs
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/11/2010 @ 05:42:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it's probable the source just got it wrong, and there's nothing really to read into how long it's taking. However, not only is it not impossible trading him is an option, it's really not all that clear that's not their best option. His points are nothing new, but despite all the flames he takes from the peanut gallery, they're valid questions.

Really the biggest con to trading him might be more PR related, than baseball related, and that's probably not a good sign. Like he said, the Twins have likely made a massive offer, and if he passes, then so be it. From a PR standpoint, the Twins tried, and the "give him whatever he wants" public just aren't being sane about it. Our payroll is nearing $100 mil for the first time ever, and that's pushing it, so we're talking about almost 1/4 the payroll, to one guy, and 35+% of it to our catcher and closer, who now needs Tommy John's surgery.

Sure things look ok now, but what about in 6 years when Target Field isn't a draw for its own sake anymore, and the team averages 20k, the payroll dips to $70mil, and our $22mil a year catcher has to be moved elsewhere because his oft injured back/knees can't take it?

It's painful to say, but resigning Mauer really isn't the no-brainer that many many people are making it out to be.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 03/11/2010 5:43:20 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
03/12/2010 @ 05:15:58 AM
 Quote this comment
...but as negotiations have lagged, Mauer's hesitancy to accept a record-setting contract offer from his hometown team...
So if your star player doesn't accept an agreement after 2 weeks, you better start worrying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
03/13/2010 @ 10:54:59 AM
 Quote this comment
Bummer that Brewers tickets were sold out, but I think we're going to like 5-6 other games at Target Field!emoticon

Edit: Final count = 9 games.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 03/14/2010 10:03:28 am
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
03/13/2010 @ 08:31:38 PM
 Quote this comment
go to e-bay, I'm sure someone is selling tickets to the brewer games.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
03/14/2010 @ 10:02:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah they're all over stubhub, I'll look when it's closer, maybe they'll go down in price after the original hoopla dies down.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
03/19/2010 @ 03:04:21 PM
 Quote this comment
It's hard to beleive that it's really been this long in the making, and that we'll be there in less than 24 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOPcOqLZs_s Flip it to 480p
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
03/21/2010 @ 05:02:40 PM
 Quote this comment


Twins, Mauer Agree To Eight-Year Deal
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
03/21/2010 @ 08:26:07 PM
 Quote this comment


Woot! What a steal at like $40,000 per at bat. I will treasure them allemoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
03/24/2010 @ 07:16:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Biggest signing ever and there's like no comments? Blasphemous. Mahay is a BIG deal!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/24/2010 @ 08:40:54 PM
 Quote this comment
It makes me wonder if this could be a sign that the Brewers should pay out for Fielder. Any questions about Fielder's future health due to his size are probably even less than questions about Mauer's health for a couple of reason: 1) Mauer has been hurt in the past and has spent his share of time on the DL; and 2) Mauer is a catcher, and the reality is that catchers take a beating, and even the most durable catchers can get worn down or injured through no fault of their own other than just normal ware and tear. While fielder is a big guy, he hasn't gotten any bigger really since his rookie year and he hasn't been injured yet in his big league career. In fact, I believe that is one of if not the only player last season to play in every inning of every game for his team.

In summary, signing Fielder actually seems to make as much of not more sense to the Brewers as Mauer's signing did for the Twins.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto - 209 Posts
03/25/2010 @ 07:40:37 AM
 Quote this comment
Another Brewers post in the Target field thread.

I think there are some major factors you are ignoring in the Brewers resigning Fielder. He is not from Milwaukee, so there won't be any sort of hometwon discount like they may have been in Mauer's deal. I think the health concerns are valid and he is also represented by Scott Boras and we all know what that means. Good luck with that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/25/2010 @ 10:01:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:40:54 PM
It makes me wonder if this could be a sign that the Brewers should pay out for Fielder. Any questions about Fielder's future health due to his size are probably even less than questions about Mauer's health for a couple of reason: 1) Mauer has been hurt in the past and has spent his share of time on the DL; and 2) Mauer is a catcher, and the reality is that catchers take a beating, and even the most durable catchers can get worn down or injured through no fault of their own other than just normal ware and tear. While fielder is a big guy, he hasn't gotten any bigger really since his rookie year and he hasn't been injured yet in his big league career. In fact, I believe that is one of if not the only player last season to play in every inning of every game for his team.

In summary, signing Fielder actually seems to make as much of not more sense to the Brewers as Mauer's signing did for the Twins.


http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/could-mauers-deal-impact-fielder.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
03/25/2010 @ 06:18:42 PM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 08:40:37 AM
Another Brewers post in the Target field thread.

I think there are some major factors you are ignoring in the Brewers resigning Fielder. He is not from Milwaukee, so there won't be any sort of hometwon discount like they may have been in Mauer's deal. I think the health concerns are valid and he is also represented by Scott Boras and we all know what that means. Good luck with that.


I'm not saying the health concerns aren't valid. But there are actually real health concerns with Mauer, considering that he has been hurt in his career. I'm only saying that you are going to say that Fielder is a health risk, you are being very conveniently selective if you claim that Mauer is not a risk. The hometown thing is probably a moot point, because while fielder didn't grow up in Milwaukee, he is a homegrown player. Scott Boras is a very valid point to bring up though.

Point being, I did not ignore anything, and health thing I actually addressed in detail, and basically refuted, especially when compared to Mauer.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
03/25/2010 @ 06:25:15 PM
 Quote this comment
And regarding the article Jeremy posted, I think it is still just rehashing an old point. How you can you claim that Fielder's health is a concern without even mention the fact that he has never been injured in his career and Mauer has? Mauer has already had a couple of very significant injuries. Fielder hasn't. Responsible journalism calls for responsible reporting people!

Again, I won't argue that Fielder doesn't have some risk of future health concerns due to his size. But it is not fair to claim that and not claim that Mauer has any list risk. He has already proven that he has some health risks. Fielder has no history of health problems.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
03/25/2010 @ 09:11:07 PM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 08:40:37 AM
he is also represented by Scott Boras and we all know what that means.


One last thing. I'm coming at this from the angle of whether or not the Brewers SHOULD sign Fielder, not if they will be successful. The Boras aspect has nothing to do with whether or not they should or shouldn't sign fielder. Whether this will cause them to be successful, now that's another story.

Ok, I'm done.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/26/2010 @ 10:12:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, to be fair they don't mention it because it's somewhat irrelevant. Just because Mauer has been injured doesn't mean he's likely to be injured again, and just because Fielder hasn't been doesn't mean he won't be. You're looking at two players, and stats/history, to try and project who's less likely to hold up over the long haul, based only only their body type. One guy is an all American athlete and is the best person playing pretty much every sport he tries, and another guy had to practically go vegan to keep his weight 5 cheeseburgers under 300 pounds. Athletic now means usable later, even at another position, giant power hitter who can only play first now means guy best suited for DH in a few years, with a potential for outright burnout.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 03/26/2010 10:19:34 am
images.jpgcraig - This is Anfield
07/08/2010 @ 10:01:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 10/14/2009 @ 08:43:44 AM
The only numbers available are the size of the advertising slots on the board, so I had to do some scale assumptions of my own. No word yet on how big Miller Park's new scoreboard will be.

target_field_scoreboard.png
[Click to Enlarge]


The word.

"The new video board will be 5,940 square feet and will be the third largest scoreboard in Major League Baseball. The only larger boards in baseball are in Kansas City and Phoenix."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/97990759.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/08/2010 @ 10:17:22 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, it's hard to suss out when they're talking about the scoreboard in it's entirety vs just the video display. The video board will only be 3% bigger than Target Field's, so the above graphic should give you a fairly decent sense of the scale they're talking about.

I can only assume this will even more completely fill the only two slits in the outfield that could count as being "open air".

Edit: Miller Park's will be 110x54. Target Field's is 101x57, which is actually the ratio one would expect (16x9) So I don't know if someone got their lines crossed, or what, but I guess miller's will be more rectangular, if that's correct.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 07/08/2010 10:31:14 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/08/2010 @ 11:32:56 AM
 Quote this comment
target_field_vs_miller_park_scoreboard.png
[Click to Enlarge]


Tada!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
07/08/2010 @ 01:11:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:22 AM
more rectangular, if that's correct.


Pretty sure it's not.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/08/2010 @ 02:27:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, a 110 foot wide 16x9 would be just under 62 feet tall, which is no where near the 54-55 foot reported height. A 54 inch tall 16x9 would be 96 wide, which is also not close to reported. It would be hard to be that off, and were either the case it would be much smaller than other screens, or probably the largest, so I'm leaning towards it being correct, and the Brewers just wanted to be different and invent the 2:1 aspect ratio.

110*54=5940 which checkout out as the reported square footage, which may or may not corroborate the values. (Depends if that was reported to them, or figured out by the writer from the erroneous values.)

It really isn't anything. The only thing is that they'll have to letterbox, or chop off the top and bottom of, HD feeds from other games, TWIB, and whatever else they get in the usual ratio. (My personal guess is they leave all the open space on one side and have ads going)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/08/2010 2:34:18 pm
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
07/08/2010 @ 03:37:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:11:04 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:22 AM
more rectangular, if that's correct.


Pretty sure it's not.


I meant your use of the phrase "more rectangular" was not correct. They are both equally rectangular (assuming they both have 90 degree corners)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/08/2010 @ 03:57:29 PM
 Quote this comment
It's a perfectly valid phrase used all the time in the "screen" world, and other places dimensions are involved. It's farther from being a square. It's less square. Don't be a dick. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this at 07/08/2010 4:29:08 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
07/09/2010 @ 07:43:30 AM
 Quote this comment
It looks like for the most part it doesn't take up much more space than the existing structure. They will use the screen for their scoreboard and lineups as well, so it will just take up the space being used by that. And, other stadiums that have wider than normal screens actually look pretty darn cool. Raymond James stadium has a screen that is at least letterbox, and it sort of makes it look more dramatic somehow. Either way, I don't think the wideness will take away anything.


My guess is that it will be a freaking sweet score/video board.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 07/09/2010 7:44:50 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
07/09/2010 @ 09:20:39 AM
 Quote this comment
I meant that it being wider isn't really a big deal. It's curious because all the new HD ones I know of follow the international HD standard, but it's not really a huge deal. They're going to have to cut off or use less of the screen when doing replays, but a lot of places do that anyway.

It could actually be better, because it could give them an area on the right or left to have the lineup always there whereas if the Twins/Yankees,etc want to show something at less than full screen the ratio dictates that they then have space at the left/right and bottom.

Edit: And it might sound stupid, because we/I really shouldn't be swayed by technology, but one of the things I thought was lamest about Miller Park was the scoreboard that looked like the got it off a high school field built in the mid 80's.

Also, were I a Brewer fan I would have mixed feelings about that rendering, because while it looks cool, if might be the closest you get to seeing Prince actually on it, in a Brewers uni at least.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/09/2010 9:26:11 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
07/09/2010 @ 09:30:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, one of the coolest things about having a video board that big and clear is that you can see it from all over the downtown area. I assume the same thing will apply when the Brewers add this to their totally open, and not at all enclosed feeling, ballpark. emoticonemoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
07/09/2010 @ 12:29:19 PM
 Quote this comment
And also nowhere near downtown, what's your point? How's tailgating at Target Field?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
07/09/2010 @ 12:53:59 PM
 Quote this comment
There are many places to do so, but we've never tried because tailgating is one of the lamest activities I could possibly think of. emoticon You don't hear a lot about tailgating at Twins/Vikings game because most people don't have any desire to, not because they can't.

I don't know why a field in the middle of no where with 90,000 acres of surface lot would be a pre req for tailgating.

Edit: Not to mention there are tons of bars/restaurants/etc right there.

Edit: I mean I know you won't agree tail gating is lame, and that's just my opinion. But tailgating is one of those "you grew up doing it, or you have no idea what the draw is" kind of things. I find the concept of leaving for the game hours earlier than need be, and standing on a giant blacktop parking lot on a 90 degree day, so I can eat food I could have made at home in 1/4 the hassle, or got at a drive through on the way for no hassle completely baffling. I find the concept of doing all that just so everyone can get drunk first borderline alcoholism. Matt, Jon, Sarah, and I can hang out anywhere. I don't get the appeal of making a point to sit in a parking lot one tiny tiny bit.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 07/09/2010 1:10:48 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/09/2010 @ 01:53:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:53:59 PM
I don't get the appeal of making a point to sit in a parking lot one tiny tiny bit.


Cuz it's totally awesome! And that being the case, The placement and design of Miller Park is perfect for Brewer fans who love tailgating. There are dozens of concrete bins for dumping hot coals. The parking rows are perfect for setting up camp right behind your car. There is some available green space if you want to play catch, or play whiffle ball. There are people all over the parking lot playing some sort of horseshoes-like game (bean bag toss, ladder-ball, etc). The atmosphere is just awesome. And all of this is on Miller Park grounds, so you don't have to worry about a private (or even public) parking lot having their own rules about grilling and partying and whatnot. So in other words, Target Field would be a disastrous fit for Milwaukee.

So ends the "you don't like tailgating, I do" portion of this thread.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/09/2010 @ 02:15:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Sure, and the placement of Target field is perfect for a group of people that aren't crazy or alcoholics consider the game the reason to go to a game.

I mean, I guess I look at it this way; Hanging out with friends is fun. Grilling out with friends can be fun. Playing that beanbag game and horseballs can be fun. But those are all things we can do anywhere, and for the most part don't. I can put burgers on the grill for Jon, Sarah, and myself anytime, but we haven't ever, so we must rather do what we usually do, which is go eat out, which is what we do before Twins games as well. While all those things are fun, we must not think they're that fun since we've never done it, and setting up an arbitrary time where we're now "captive" and those become the only alternative doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most of the activities done there are of the "would be a fun alternative to just sitting there while 'trapped' at a family reunion" variety, and aren't something people do given their druthers.

98% of Wisconsinites forgo drinking at home, or in their driveways, even with friends, preferring instead to go to a bar, where they proceed to only interact with those same people anyway, and where drinks are 5 times as expensive. Somehow that attitude pulls a complete 180 in regards to sports: "You have to go to one of 100 bars/restaurants within a 10 minute walk?! What a sucker! Our ballpark is in the middle of no where, so I'm allowed to stand by my car and get plastered with my own beer!"

Edit: And in case anyone is wondering why I didn't put Matt on my "burger" list, I didn't forget him. He only eats meat in nugget form, and pizza.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 07/09/2010 2:49:42 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/09/2010 @ 04:15:22 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not sure what most of that comment was about, or why so combative (I'm not crazy, or alcoholic, and I love tailgating, 3+ hours before most of the games I go to). Target field, it's location, and everything else is probably perfect for the Twins. But tailgating is a part of Brewers baseball. you cannot separate the two. I'm not knocking Target field here. I don't care that Twins fans or that you don't tailgate. But Brewers fans do, pretty much every game. It just wouldn't work to have a stadium in that type of surroundings in Milwaukee. Downtown stadiums have their perks, no doubt, but baseball in Milwaukee has been outside the city since the 50s.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 07/09/2010 4:16:00 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
07/09/2010 @ 05:16:43 PM
 Quote this comment
So I just read a few the early posts on this thread, and the consensus at the time, even among the Twins faithful, was that the lack of Dome was "downright stupid". What are everyone's opinions now that they have experienced multiple games? (this isn't a "let's trash miller park" type of question. It is a legitimate question).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - How do you use these things?
07/09/2010 @ 05:36:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Target Field rules! Miller Park Sux!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/09/2010 @ 05:50:36 PM
 Quote this comment
My feelings, and those I've heard expressed a lot, is that once you see it, you're glad there's no roof, because then it's an outdoor ballpark and not a mostly indoors ballpark. I know you don't want to hear speaking ill of Miller Park, but it's usually the prime example people give. Sarah's car has a giant moon roof, and with the windows down, you can probably get the gist of outside alright, but it wouldn't be "outside."

We've been there during light rain (though we were protected by the canopy), fairly extreme cold (as far as baseball months go), and a very hot/humid day. The days/evenings where it's 77 and nice make up for all that, and the only real problem, and biggest change from a roofed stadium, was the really really hot day, of which there will be many, and for which the roofs probably don't close.

I like it how it is, and if some local billionaire willed the city/Twins money expressly for installing a retractable roof, I wouldn't want them to do it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 07/09/2010 5:53:00 pm
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
07/09/2010 @ 05:54:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:16:43 PM
So I just read a few the early posts on this thread, and the consensus at the time, even among the Twins faithful, was that the lack of Dome was "downright stupid". What are everyone's opinions now that they have experienced multiple games? (this isn't a "let's trash miller park" type of question. It is a legitimate question).


I enjoyed the days when I paid no attention to the forecast before games, and it's going to be really annoying to experience a rain delay/cancellation on a day we go to Target Field. I just wasted over an hour at Carson Park waiting out a rain delay the other day, and the game ultimately got suspended anyway. It sucked and I didn't have to drive 1.5 hours there and back and shell out as much money for a ticket. That said, so far the last two Twins games I've been at have been basically as nice as you could ask for weather-wise. I love outdoor baseball in the summer when it's nice. Ideally, I'd probably like a roof more like what they have in Seattle, (though I haven't seen it in person) where it's built up on the outside of the stadium and then moves over the rest, but sacrificing as little openness as possible. I really like how Target Field opens up into the city, and I haven't really seen a retractable roof stadium that can do that well, so I'm not sure if it's even realistic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
07/09/2010 @ 06:18:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:37:50 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:11:04 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:17:22 AM
more rectangular, if that's correct.


Pretty sure it's not.


I meant your use of the phrase "more rectangular" was not correct. They are both equally rectangular (assuming they both have 90 degree corners)
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:57:29 PM
It's a perfectly valid phrase used all the time in the "screen" world, and other places dimensions are involved. It's farther from being a square. It's less square. Don't be a dick. emoticon


I think technically, the word you're looking for here is eccentric. It's more eccentric. But I think more rectangular is pretty clear.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/09/2010 @ 06:38:34 PM
 Quote this comment
I wasn't "looking for" anything. I didn't invent it, and it's a perfectly valid, perfectly clear, colloquial usage. (And not in the could care less vs couldn't care less "everyone knows what you mean" vein, more along the lines of the word "theory" having completely different definitions as a technical versus a colloquial term.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 07/09/2010 6:38:56 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3355 Posts
07/10/2010 @ 01:03:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Next thing you know Jeremy will be saying that peanuts are his favorite nut and raspberries are his favorite berry. Such a simpleton.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
07/10/2010 @ 05:05:08 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:38:34 PM
I wasn't "looking for" anything. I didn't invent it, and it's a perfectly valid, perfectly clear, colloquial usage. (And not in the could care less vs couldn't care less "everyone knows what you mean" vein, more along the lines of the word "theory" having completely different definitions as a technical versus a colloquial term.)


Or like how the phrase "looking for" doesn't necessarily mean you were actually searching for, or desiring, something else? Especially when it's used by someone who is more or less agreeing with you?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/10/2010 @ 10:41:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, it has to imply some sort of "this would have been more correct emoticon" meaning, and in this case a technical term, which was beside the point we were making. I didn't mean to sound so defensive there though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
07/11/2010 @ 07:39:14 AM
 Quote this comment
What's your definition of "imply"?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
07/11/2010 @ 04:55:07 PM
 Quote this comment
nevermind, moved to other thread.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 07/11/2010 5:06:25 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/10/2010 @ 10:30:56 AM
 Quote this comment
http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/107039178.html

Target Field Changes for 2011

A new video display board in right field, measuring 50 feet wide by 28 feet high.
A 100-foot-tall "Twins Tower" to the right of the new scoreboard will display animation, graphics and text information. The time of day will be displayed at the top. I'm having trouble picturing this.....
Free Wi-Fi
More radiant heat will be added to seating in the Home Run Porch and the terrace level.
More art/MN things

Edit: Cool, they added a rendering to the article.

Edit: Also, unless it was an accident, they had the "Twi-fi" open already for the playoffs
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/10/2010 10:43:42 am
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
11/10/2010 @ 05:21:02 PM
 Quote this comment
So I was in downtown Minneapolis last weekend, and I happened to stumble across Target Field. And when I say "tumble" I literally mean I was walking through town and suddenly, without realizing it, I see seats. I knew we were walking to Target Field, but I sort of thought it would be a little more obvious than what it was. I'm guessing it looks and feels a lot better from the inside, but I had no feeling that I was anywhere near where professional baseball was played even when standing at the gate looking in. It just didn't seem like a baseball stadium from where I was.

I'll withhold final judgement of any kind until I have the privilege of actually catching a game from inside.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
11/10/2010 @ 05:39:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Tickets go on sale mid-March, buy early and buy often. :) These new additions will be pretty cool, I'm glad they're already looking to improve it. I always thought it was a waste to have that big Mortenson Construction ad in right center. I understood why it was there, but glad it was only a one year deal. I wonder what other foods they'll add, I still never got a gelato!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - many posts
11/11/2010 @ 02:38:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:39:16 PM
Tickets go on sale mid-March, buy early and buy often. :) These new additions will be pretty cool, I'm glad they're already looking to improve it. I always thought it was a waste to have that big Mortenson Construction ad in right center. I understood why it was there, but glad it was only a one year deal. I wonder what other foods they'll add, I still never got a gelato!


Whoa, I totally didn't even think about what food I didn't eat. I never got a chili or soup. Probably because they didn't play long enough to have a cold weather game this year. I also didn't eat any of the various fish products they serve. Not sure I trust fish from a ballpark though. As excited as I was for the new food options, I really stuck with the same couple things for the most part. The Cuban was quite good and so was the Kruakdfalskjfkldsjflkdfj;uk's polish sausage. I also had a pulled pork (I think) sandwich from one of those generic food places which was good I think. Also, at the Town Ball Tavern, I really enjoyed my meatball hoagie, or whatever it was called. If it wasn't like 11am, I probably would have liked it even more.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/12/2010 @ 06:54:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Even Morneau Hate Target Field. He calls it "ridiculous", "impossible", and "difficult". I'll let you piece together the context.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/12/2010 @ 08:12:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:54:33 PM
Even Morneau Hate Target Field. He calls it "ridiculous", "impossible", and "difficult". I'll let you piece together the context.

I read that earlier. His new baby must be influencing him. Waa Waa. Maybe if he played more than half a season ever he could figure out Target Field.
We're not the Yankees, we don't need a tiny tiny field.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/13/2010 @ 02:19:23 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:54:33 PM
I'll let you piece together the context.


Do you mean like any context? :)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/13/2010 @ 07:43:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:19:23 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:54:33 PM
I'll let you piece together the context.


Do you mean like any context? :)


I was practicing my shock journalism.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3355 Posts
11/13/2010 @ 04:49:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:12:36 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:54:33 PM
Even Morneau Hate Target Field. He calls it "ridiculous", "impossible", and "difficult". I'll let you piece together the context.

I read that earlier. His new baby must be influencing him. Waa Waa. Maybe if he played more than half a season ever he could figure out Target Field.
We're not the Yankees, we don't need a tiny tiny field.


I hear Nick Punto requested the installation of a Slip 'n Slide down the first base line.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jon.jpgJon - many posts
11/14/2010 @ 04:30:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:49:39 PM
Sarah Wrote - 11/12/2010 @ 08:12:36 PM
Scott Wrote - 11/12/2010 @ 06:54:33 PM
Even Morneau Hate Target Field. He calls it "ridiculous", "impossible", and "difficult". I'll let you piece together the context.

I read that earlier. His new baby must be influencing him. Waa Waa. Maybe if he played more than half a season ever he could figure out Target Field.
We're not the Yankees, we don't need a tiny tiny field.


I hear Nick Punto requested the installation of a Slip 'n Slide down the first base line.


Hi-Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Five nuts.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/14/2010 @ 08:16:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Does he slide into first base a lot?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
06/26/2011 @ 02:18:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Whatever the criticisms of the ratio of the Miller Park video board were, I'd say it works exactly the way the designers wanted it to. They could have the video up as well as keep the lineups and line score for both teams up on the screen if they wanted to, or they could have the entire board as the video. Either way, I would say it was impossible to notice that the ratio was off, so whatever. The video board was a big improvement and it was very impressive.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.