Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:23 PM
Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:43 PM
come on everybody. play nice. We shouldn't have to tell people not to call each other names on these boards. we can be homers. We can be a realists. we can share of different opinions. there should be no name calling, no bashing of peoples intelligence. there are no absolutes in baseball. . Period. please, do not let this become just another negative, insulting, name calling forum. thank you for your consideration!
I typically refrain from any name calling, but I stand by my statement fully. It's one thing to disagree with the Twins front office choices, it's a totally different thing to imply race was the factor behind many of those moves, not even your worst "shock jock" sports radio hosts would bring up that sort of argument.
Nobody argues that letting Ortiz go wasn't a bad move, but the reason they did it at the time was three fold.
1. He couldn't stay healthy
2. He had ZERO defensive value
3. He didn't get along with management.
He spent parts of six major league seasons with the Twins, and though he had some success for the Twins, he never put together any sort of numbers that even suggested what was to come in Boston (read: steroids/whatever), it was a cheap cost cutting move no doubt, a bad baseball decision, a bad judgement of talent etc, but they didn't get rid of him because he wasn't white.
Wow, I can't believe I actually took time to respond to that comment, I feel like I have been trolled...
Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:50 PM
Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:51 PM
Heh. I shouted as loudly as I could on these internet thingies that Ortiz was their best hitter,
In his best year on the Twins (2002) Ortiz was still the 4th best player OPS wise, behind such mashers as Jones, Kielty and Hunter. (Koskie was 10 points behind him, but brough significantly more value since he could actually play a position) in 2001 he was the 5th best (keep in mind these were both pretty bad teams) Again, it was an obvious mistake to get rid of him bc at 1.5 million or whatever he was a no brainer to re-sign, but nobody knew, nor there was any reason to believe he would become the MVP type player down the road.
Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:51 PM
At the time I recall that no one signed Ortiz until late spring[...] but not signing him was not a mistake at that time.
Nobody argues that letting Ortiz go wasn't a bad move
VodkaDave meet roger
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:58 PM
Those teams also don't have one of the worst playoff records in the last 10 years, either.
Why don't you put this in your sig and then it will be seen with every one of your posts and not just 75% of them?
Posted 08 April 2012 - 07:51 PM
Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:37 PM
Ortiz... It certainly wasn't statistical
Over six years with time at the majors he'd accumulated fewer than 2.5 wins above replacement. Not to mention, his signing for $1.25M (as has already been pointed out) is an indication that not everyone else in the world knew all about this secret that he was going to be awesome.
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:04 AM
As someone who was writing throughout the time that the Twins released Ortiz, I have always had trouble criticizing that move. I wrote about it several times per week for several weeks. At the time Ortiz had some serious flaws - he was hurt a lot, he couldn't hit lefties at all, he seemed like purely a DH and he was about to get expensive. Ryan went to the winter meetings clearly trying to trade him and came back frustrated that he couldn't find any takers. He released him and Boston ended up signing him (for just $1.25M) and a couple of other guys (Millar, Jeremy Giambi and someone else if memory serves) with those four guys fighting for two spots. Ortiz was clearly the last guy in the race coming into spring training. I can't remember how he worked his way into the lineup, but if you look at 2003, you'll notice he wasn't an everyday player until the end of April. It really was out of nowhere.
Regarding a race discussion, I don't think that's out of bounds on this forum. I don't think Ortiz is an especially compelling data point for all the reasons I just listed. Bottom line: he wasn't the same guy here.
Pretty much this.. Anyone in the league could have had him for a C level prospect, but didn't bite due to cost. Boston got him for far less then what he would have had if Minnesota had kept him... that's the down side to the CBA and arbitration. You can also argue that he would have never become what he is now had he stayed..
Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:48 AM