No More Conundrum

Joe Mauer resigns with the Twins for 8 years - $184 million dollars. And with a no-trade clause for the length of the contract.

Monopoly money, but less than what he could have got on the open market.

A good deal for the Twins organization, and an indication of the impact of Target Field.

Let's play ball.

The Joe Mauer Conundrum

As you may have heard, Minnesota Twins catcher and reigning American League Most Valuable Player Joe Mauer has one year left on his contract. After 2010, he is free to sign with any team in Major League Baseball, i.e. the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox or Washington Nationals. With the season opener only a couple of weeks away, people around these parts are starting to get a tad bit nervous about the fact that Mauer (a local St. Paul kid) has not yet signed on the dotted line with the Twins. Speculation is starting to mount that Joe might be lured away by the bright lights of New York or Boston and the huge endorsement opportunities that might come with playing in those cities. Some articles are starting to pop up such as this and this and especially this on the subject.

Conventional wisdom points to Joe Mauer staying in Minnesota. Just walk around any street and ask somebody what they think and you will hear the following:

1. Joe will never leave Minnesota. He is from St. Paul. His entire family attends every game. he has cabin Up North that is more of a Castle Up North that he would not want to abandon during the baseball season.

2. His brother, Billy Mauer, just opened a car dealership. If Joe left, this would piss people off and sabotage his brother's new business.

3. Joe will take less money to stay with the Twins than he would with Boston or New York because he wants the Twins to be able to build a winning team around him.

4. Joe has great friends on the Twins such as Justin Morneau and J.J. Hardy that he would not want to part ways with.

Now, I am not going to pretend to know if any of these points are true or false or hold any type of validity at all. I hope they are at least partially true. I have come to a conclusion regarding the whole process about signing Mauer, however:

Signing Joe Mauer is actually far more important "off the field" than it is "on the field."

Let's start with "on the field" Joe Mauer. The dude is the reigning AL MVP and a three time batting champion. He is a gold glove winner. He is excellent defensively and, according to Twins pitchers, calls a great game. What worries me, however, is that he is literally so good that the Twins have no leverage in these contract negotiations. He can command virtually any salary he asks for, probably in the $25-30 million per year range. If the Twins succumb to this demand, Joe Mauer will account for nearly 30% of the Twins entire payroll. If he gets injured (as he has in the past), 30% of the payroll is on the DL. And remember that he is 6'4" and playing catcher - a position that is very hard on the knees and body. The whole situation smacks of the Timberwolves and Kevin Garnett in the late 90's when they were basically the best player in basketball and five stiffs. They were good enough to make the playoffs, but couldn't compete once they did. Then again, once the Wolves traded Garnett, they became the worst team in basketball, which could serve as a cautionary tale for the Twins.

Would the Twins be better off trading Mauer, as Jim Souhan suggests in his article? That depends on what they receive in return, which is not always equal value (see Johan Santana trade). It is intriguing to speculate what the Twins could receive from Boston or New York for Mauer. In addition, one of the top-5 prospects in the Twins farm system is a catcher - Wison Ramos. Now, don't get me wrong, even as I offer these points I believe that the Twins are a better team on the field with Joe Mauer than without him, but it is not as clear cut as people think. And signing him is not without it's negative ramifications for a team that cannot afford a limitless payroll.

On the other hand is the "off the field" impact of Joe Mauer. This, in my opinion, is where the Twins absolutely cannot afford to lose Joe Mauer. The public relations hit that they would take is immeasurable. I simply cannot imagine the backlash from the general public towards the Twins if they do not resign Mauer. They would get publicly raked over the coals like no organization has ever been raked. The mere fact that Target Field, a ballpark built with public funds "to allow the Twins to retain their talent" opens this spring. Bad timing to lose your best player who grew up 10 miles away. People would cancel their season tickets. Nearly 11,345 teenage girls would no longer buy Twins t-shirts with the number 7 on the back. And I don't think they would buy Jon Rausch t-shirts instead. All of this is lost revenue for the Twins organization. In addition, the impact on revenue from the bad press and negative public reaction would be huge. From an off-field perspective, the Minnesota Twins have no choice but to sign Joe Mauer, which leads to the aforementioned positives and negatives "on the field."

Thus, we have the Joe Mauer Conundrum.

What do you think will happen?

So Much For The Closer

Well, it took until exactly March 9th this year for the Minnesota Twins to endure their first shit-storm of the year. It has been learned through an MRI that All-Star closer Joe Nathan has "a significant tear of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament in his right elbow," which may not only end his season, it may end his career. After all, the dude is 35 (a mere 8 years younger than Old Man Thompson). This may require Tommy John surgery, which usually can shelve a pitcher for about 2 years. Returning to baseball at 37 may be tough for Joe Nathan.

I wondered late last year what was wrong with Joe Nathan. He seemed to morph into a junk-balling pitcher who relied on his slider rather than a power-pitcher who blew batters away with an over-powering fastball. He looked like he was going to die on the mound every time he pitched (even more than usual). He admitted after the season ended that his elbow bothered him and had some "minor" surgery to remove some junk or other. It turns out that the problem was much larger than that. Now, you may or may not believe this, but I was ready to write a blog post the other day and declare that Joe Nathan was my pick "Twin I Am Most Concerned About." I was worried that his late season performance in 2009 would carry over into 2010. Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore. The trouble is, there is no Plan B when it comes to a closer for the Minnesota Twins.

There are some options, however. The Twins can trade an player (Glen Perkins?) for a closer or relief pitcher from another team. The problem is that I don't think Mariano Rivera is currently available. I would guess that a closer may become available from a non-contending team around the trading deadline in the summer. For this to be an option, however, the Twins had better hope they are in contention until the trading deadline. Until then, they would have to live with "closing by committee" with the current relief staff. Here are some of the pro's and con's of the current staff:

Jesse Crain: All con. The next coming of Ron Davis. JC instead of RD. Crain throws the straightest fastball that I have ever seen that often sails 430 feet the other way when hit.

Pat Neshek: Neshek has great stuff and a submarine-style way of pitching that is often unhittable. He is a possibility. And, oh yeah, he hasn't pitched in 2 years because of Tommy John (him again) surgery.

Jon Rauch: Rauch is my dark-horse to be the closer, at least at the beginning of the season. The thing I like about Rauch is that, while he is supposedly a great guy, he looks crazy. He is 6'11" and has one of those creepy neck tattoos. He has this vacant, zombie-like stare and throws hard. All of this is great for a closer. And, he actually had the role with the Washington National for a while, which is like being the lead singer for Spandau Ballet. I mean, who really cares? While Rauch looks the part, nobody knows if he can get anybody out in the closer role on a winning team in a pennant race.

Matt Guerrier: Guerrier is a great set-up guy and eats a lot of innings in relief. I am not sure if it would benefit the team to remove him from this role. Also, he seems like a laid-back kind of dude who may not have the closer mentality. Kind of like having the Big Lebowski close for your team.

Jose Mijares: I don't know. Nasty stuff, but Mijares will most certainly walk the first batter he faces each game. This is not good for a closer. Also, he seems to have Visa and weight issues. You may have to summon him from Hrbek's Pub rather than the bullpen when it's time to pitch.

Oddly enough, 3 of the last 4 great closers that the Twins have had began their careers as starters. Rick Aguileria, Eddie Guardado and Joe Nathan were all starters when they came to the Twins. Jeff Reardon, I believe, was always a closer. Maybe the team's next closer is a starter, which brings up.......

Francisco Liriano: The Twins want Liriano to start, but closing may not be a bad role for him if starting does not work out. Liriano's starts usually go pretty well for about 3 innings before his mechanics change and he gets wild. Most closers only have to pitch one inning, so this may not be an issue. Liriano, however, is another relief pitcher that may not have the mentality for the closer role.

Alas, I do not know the answer. My guess is that the Twins will try the "closer by committee" and then pick up a mid-level closer from another team at the trading deadline. Hopefully, Joe Nathan's injury is not something that will derail what promises to be a very good season. Hopefully, it is the only shit-storm for awhile.

Jeff

38 Days and Counting....

It all started to sink in yesterday. I met Freealonzo, Shane and Snyder at Stub & Herb's near the U campus to select our portion of the half-season ticket plan we purchased (thanks to Snyder!). In addition, our group was able to purchase tickets to the season-opener against Boston, which is now only 38 days away. It is now starting to sink in that, after a decade of watching the Legislative battle over financing and writing countless letters to the editor and e-mails to politicians, that this ballpark is really going to open.

There was a point (well, many points) that I thought it would never happen. Thank God that the calmer, wiser voices prevailed and people realized that this project could get done. Thank God that we didn't listen to the cynics and naysayers. Would we be better off without Target Field? Would downtown Minneapolis be better off? I defy anybody in Hennepin County or the state of Minnesota to show me how their finances have been negatively impacted by the building of this stadium. I am not talking about a few dollars here and there, I am talking about a serious financial impact like the naysayers predicted. I don't think anyone can.

I came across a recent editorial written by Garrison Keillor for The New York Times on this subject. Here is what Keillor had to say:

"The beauty part of my week (not that you asked) was a visit to the warehouse district north of downtown Minneapolis where, in my boyhood, I used to ride my bike past printing plants and barrelworks, small factories, a slaughterhouse, lumberyards, auto salvage yards, fascinated by the sight of men at work, and where, now, a new ballpark has arisen where, on April 12, though we are still knee-deep in snow, the Minnesota Twins will open the 2010 campaign, against the mighty Red Sox and their nation.

On Monday I snuck into the park through a door left ajar and attached myself to a group of suits on tour and got to see the whole joint, the steep left-field bleachers, the spruce trees in deep center, the skyboxes (each with a porch, so the nabobs can get fresh air), down to the locker room (with batting cage and pitching machine nearby, just like at a carnival), and to me, a skeptic when it comes to public works, this looks to be the Eighth Wonder of the World, a temple on the order of Wrigley or Fenway or the Acropolis, a beautiful little bandbox of a ballpark tucked snugly into streets of old warehouses and the Burlington railyards, with commuter trains running to its front door, a sight that fills me with unmitigated dizzy delight.

We Minnesotans have been watching baseball in a basement for 28 years, under a fabric dome on a plastic field designed for football, and come April, we’ll be sitting in sunlight, or under the stars, with the handsome towers of downtown Minneapolis just beyond center field, and we’ll mill on the great concourse just behind the loge seats and eyeball the game while ordering a steak sandwich or an old-fashioned Schweigert hot dog. Hallelujah. Wowser.

That this beauty was accomplished through public financing — $392 million of the $544 million total paid through a sales tax approved by the legislature — is some sort of triumph, and to an old Democrat like me, who believes that government can indeed do some good things right and is not a blight upon the land, this ballpark is an enormous pleasure..."

Amen. I really didn't intend to turn this post into a debate on public financing of projects. I joke that I am a guy who is "for everything" when it comes to public financing. Stadiums, theatres, trains, etc. I think these things add to the public landscape and make cities more desirable, livable places. I realize this does not make me popular with the "no tax" crowd. As I have stated in the past, I have a hard time envisioning the Twin Cities without the Xcel Energy Center, Target Field, the Guthrie, etc. But, this is a debate for another post.

For now, I'm just happy that we're down to 38 days and counting.

Jeff

Playing For Gold

Written with apologies to my handsome and witty Canadian brother-in-law:

I have to admit that I am not a huge fan of the Olympics. I have always been more of a "team-sport guy," so the individual sports on display such as ice dancing, speed skating and downhill skiing do not really trip my trigger. Also, I have to admit that stuff like snowboarding doesn't really seem like an Olympic sport to me. It belongs in the X Games or the Stoner Games. All this means, however, is that I am old.

But that all changes with Olympic hockey. I love Olympic hockey. I love the idea of the best hockey players in the world representing their country. Growing up, it was easy to cheer against the hated USSR, i.e. the "Godless Communists, i.e the Evil Empire." Now that the Iron Curtain has fallen, Canada represents the USA's biggest rival. Now, you can't hate Canada. That would be like hating your closest cousin. Americans and Canadians are cut from the same cloth. This is more of a rival "by vicinity." (I am not sure, however, if a Canadian would echo this sentiments - my brother in law might have to weigh in on that one). Canada also represents the most talented team in the world on paper. Check out these names on the 2010 Canadian squad: Brodeur, Luongo, Pronger, Crosby, Nash, Iginla, Thornton, Heatley, Staal, & Toews. That, folks, is literally an NHL All-Star team.

Competing against Canada for the Gold Medal will be the upstart American squad. Nobody predicted the US to be competing in the Gold Medal game. While the US is comprised of NHL players, the roster does not exactly read like an All-Star lineup. That is because there are not many NHL All-Stars that were born in America. In fact, I heard a hockey brainwizard say that the only American that could have made the Canadian roster was Zach Parise of the New Jersey Devils (and a Minnesotan, son of former North Star J.P. Parise). Along with Parise, the players with the most recognizable names would probably be Chicago's Patrick Kane, Goalie Ryan Miller of Buffalo and Phil Kessel (who is from Madison and played one year with the Gophers). The US averages about 25 years in age, and has been called a "starless team." They have managed to go undefeated, however, going into Sunday's rematch against Canada.

A second victory over Canada will not come easy. The US managed to beat Canada 5-3 earlier in the week, which seemed to piss Canada off. A second victory in a week over Canada, this time for the Gold, would not be on the level of the 1980 Gold Medal in Lake Placid, New York. Nothing can touch that. In my opinion, however, it would be one small step below that. It would be a "minor miracle on ice."

The US women's team has already lost to the Canadians in the Gold Medal game this week. Canada received quite a bit of flak for celebrating with beer, champagne and cigars publicly on the ice. I say that people should lighten up about that. The Canadian women were deserving of the celebration, and ecstatic to win the Gold. I say let them celebrate on their home ice. The only thing that I ask is that the Americans not be called ass-holes if they celebrate publicly in the same manner.

It could happen on Sunday.

30 Years Ago - Miracle On Ice -Original Live Call

It was 30 years ago that arguably the greatest upset in sports history took place in Lake Placid, New York when a bunch of American college students beat the most powerful hockey team in the world. Back in those days, the Soviet Union was still "The Evil Empire." Russians were not permitted to play in the NHL and were largely unknown in the United States. This added to their mystique along, of course, with their evil-looking CCCP jerseys.

We're all used to hearing the Al Micheals "do you believe in miracles" call. This, however, was the original call on radio, I assume. I'm not sure who the announcer is, but the emotion is great. Well worth the 10 minutes of viewing.

Hard to believe it's been 30 years.

Quatchi?

I received an e-mail from CD today alerting me to the fact that the Olympic Committee has decided to include Bigfoot (aka Sasquatch) (aka "Stink Ape") as one of their mascots for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Oddly enough, I was not aware of this. I expected, perhaps, to be consulted. But I digress. The Bigfoot mascot will be named "Quatchi." You can see a picture of Quatchi above. Here is a link to a web page about him. The description of Quatchi is as follows:

"Quatchi is a young sasquatch who comes from the mysterious forests of Canada. Quatchi is shy, but loves to explore new places and meet new friends."

Ah, ok. That's cute. Apparently, he likes hockey but is a little "clumsy." It also says he likes "photography and travel." It says he is encouraging his friends to travel with him across Canada.

All of this, of course, is bullshit.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think it is very appropriate that the Olympic Committee has decided to include the Sasquatch as one of their mascots. Why shouldn't they? Some of the greatest sightings of the Stink Ape were in Canada. There are probably thousands of them roaming The Great White North as we speak (totally undetected, of course). What I want to know is how the Olympic Committee can take a proud, 9-foot-tall, 800-pound beast and turn him into that thing you see above. That is not The Sasquatch. That is an Ewok. Remember them? Ewoks were the tiny fuzzy creatures that almost single-handidly ruined the Star Wars trilogy (that is, until Jar-Jar Binks accomplished that later). Remember when the Ewoks went up against the Imperial Stormtroopers, the toughest, most well-trained killers in the universe, and managed to beat them in a battle with nothing more than some sticks and rope? Laughable.

Once again, the Sasquatch receives no respect. He's made to look like a cross between ET and a beaver and smile and wave at all the kids. And his hobbies. Traveling? Meeting friends? No way. The Sasquatch likes to devour prey, throw stones at people and be left alone. Once again, I commend the Olympic Committee for naming the Sasquatch as a mascot, but the image of the beast should be something like this:

Now that would look great on an Olympic T-shirt.

Jeff