Every time Minnesota experiences a bad stretch of weather between April and October — and, um, the past few days certainly qualify — talk of whether the Twins should have included a retractable roof on their ballpark resumes.
The pro-roof argument says that to account for the cold and wet season as well as the number of fans who travel to games from outside the Twin Cities, a roof should have been included.
The anti-roof argument (the one I side with) says that Target Field would not be the jewel that it is had a roof been included.
I'd add this: At the old Met — before the Twins moved indoors and then outdoors again — they averaged weather postponements in about 5 percent of their games.
That's four postponements a year, which the Twins have already hit this year. Is that worth the financial cost and a diminished ballpark experience at the other 95 percent of the games? I don't think so.
Read Michael Rand's blog at startribune.com/randball. email@example.com.