Reply #101: Yes, of course it's the argument

[Sorwen]

The whole point of the ballpark is to keep the team in the state and provide a nice outdoor ballpark with grass so fans can enjoy baseball the way it is meant to be played.

Another point is to have a stadium that generates enough revenue so the Twins can afford to keep their young stars like Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau rather than lose them to high payroll teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Every year the Twins have to let some players leave, not because they don't want them anymore, but because they can't afford to pay them as much as other teams can. The new stadium would allow them to be more competitive. So far the Twins have been able to replace players with good young talent developed by the farm system, but they won't be able to replace players like Mauer, Morneau, and Santana.

So, to sum up, the argument for the stadium is that it keeps the team in the state, it significantly improves the baseball experience in comparison to the Metrodome (which was not built with baseball in mind), and it makes the team more competitive.

The economic benefit is NOT the reason for the stadium. Unless you've been listening to Sid Hartman, I don't know where you got that from. There are some economic benefits from the stadium (for example, I know that Twins players and visiting players pay a lot in state income tax). These benefits may not be enough to pay for the stadium, but they lessen the actual cost of the stadium. Some people will make the economic benefits argument to try to enhance their argument, but it's not the real reason why they want the stadium.