Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
  • Posts

    32,302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. One can feel it's a missed opportunity while not feeling it's a "huge" missed opportunity because of the risk. I'm disappointed by the Twins' failure to get Kimbrel but I'm far from heartbroken over it. As for "40 games" until a trade is made, two questions: 1. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first pitch for the Cubs? 2. When do you expect Kimbrel to throw his first effective pitch for the Cubs? The difference between "40 days to make a trade" and the answer to #2 may not be terribly different in the best case scenario and the answer could pretty easily swing heavily in favor of the trade solution without squinting too much. We're talking about a very good reliever, for sure, but one that will not have thrown a competitive pitch in 8-9 months when he takes the mound for the Cubs.
  2. For starters, because Kimbrel is a moderate risk himself, particularly for 2019, which is what I really care about right now. Who do you trust more, a pitcher having a solid 2019 season (fill in your tradable reliever of choice here) or Craig Kimbrel? I lean away from Kimbrel in that situation because I think he's something of a wild card for the 2019 season. What bothers me about last offseason is that it appears they didn't even really try hard to find a reliever. They shored up the offense, spent a considerable about of money, but still came in under the previous season's payroll threshold while failing to pick up a solid relief arm. That really irks me. Other arms will be available. When it comes to trading players or signing free agents, I generally try to avoid clinging to a specific name. What I care about is acquiring a good player, not the player I've chosen using my limited knowledge and data resources.
  3. Yeah, it can be both about the money and a sound decision. Whether we want to admit it or not, this is (mostly) a zero sum game. Time will tell who is right about Kimbrel (though if he fails, it's entirely possible the Cubs also expected it and simply do not care... that's the luxury they have of carrying a payroll well north of $200m).
  4. Yeah, and 93 and 98. I figured "and other years" was good enough to make the point.
  5. Lawton was traded in 2001 and proceeded to be pretty bad for the Mets.
  6. MLB integrated in 1947, which changed the level of competition, rendering old stats largely outdated. MLB expanded in 1961 (and other years), which lowered the level of competition, rendering old stats largely outdated. MLB lowered the mound in 1969, which gave hitters an advantage, rendering old stats largely outdated. The AL added the DH in 1973, completely skewering old team stats, rendering them largely outdated. Through the 80s and 90s, an influx of Latin players invaded the league, rendering old stats largely outdated. I could go on but you probably get my point by now.
  7. It's most definitely not "totally" due to the ball. Teams have figured out that a certain type of swing generates flyballs and that flyballs are more productive than groundballs. As a result, teams are drafting and developing players to use a swing that facilitates lots of flyballs/line drives. Add in improved conditioning and stronger players and you get more home runs. The ball likely has a role but it's far from the only factor in play here.
  8. I don't think that's the case at all. The 2019 squad started the season with Sano, possibly their best slugger (though everyone's so good right now it's almost a moot point), on the IL. Later, they had their two best overall hitters (Cruz and Garver) go down for a few weeks each. The team played some of its best baseball during that stretch of play. If a pitcher goes down, things could get ugly, but thus far the team has weathered some really good players spending extended time away from the field and no one missed a beat.
  9. I don't really buy into the 2001 comps. They were similar at a glance, but the 2001 squad had more glaring weaknesses and their competition was much better (Cleveland was never more than 5 GB). That team went from a peak of 24 games over .500 to ending the season just 8 games over .500. Even when that team was rolling (the first half of the season), their run differential was only +63. They only have two months (April and May) where they outscored their opponents. The 2019 squad has a run differential of +112 in fewer games.
  10. It has been almost impossible to complain about player management this season. Baldelli is doing an outstanding job of making sure these players are in a position to succeed with the rest needed to get through a long season.
  11. He's been doing it for about a month now. He hit his low water mark on May 12th with a .433 OPS. It has been climbing steadily since.
  12. Yes. He's professional ballplayer and if you actually watched the pregame show, they had a really good bit on how Kyle prepares between games. He's obviously ready, as his regimen appears to be solid and his results show as such. I sometimes oversleep by 15 minutes, skip a full breakfast, and still manage to perform at a high level. It's weird, how humans sometimes don't do the exact same thing every day.
  13. Yes, because attending a religious ceremony at the park is obviously the same thing as leaving the stadium to go have a hotdog at a carnival. Correlation is not causation. Your post says a whole lot about you and virtually nothing about Kyle Gibson.
  14. Wes Johnson is a right shoe first and a bacon and eggs guy. He’s also a devout satanist but I’m not sure that part matters.
  15. He needs to play more to gain that title but there is no obvious hole in his approach, which bodes well for the future. But, at least to me, Garver's hitting is secondary to the enormous strides the guy has made behind the plate and he deserves nothing but heaps of praise. That in itself has made Garver one of my new favorite Twins.
  16. And I suspect you just answered your own question, at least in part.
  17. Not in the trade itself, in the failure of the coaching staff to effectively communicate the front office's data to the player and implement that data. The Twins knew Pressly had electric stuff, but there seemed to be broken communication lines when it came to relaying how to implement desired changes to the players themselves. And I think that's part of the reason we have Baldelli and Johnson right now.
  18. This is why I don't let individual baseball games get to me. It works at least half the time, too.
  19. To be fair, I think the Pressly situation was a big reason why Molitor and part of the coaching staff was fired (and they had data to back up that decision to ownership after it happened), which is a probably a net win. Ownership never should have put the restrictions they did on Falvine in the first place but that's water under the bridge at this point.
  20. Yes. A team like the Cubs can say "what the hell, let's do it anyway" without moving the needle much on future decisions. The Twins can't do the same.
  21. Sure, the Twins *technically* can swallow the money but if your analytical analysis suggests decline and a reliever wants $16m+ a year, you don't just take on that money because you can technically eat it if you're right about the situation. That's really bad asset management. For good and bad, this front office appears to operate on a pretty strict "dollar to expected performance" ratio. While I wanted to see them land Kimbrel, I'd prefer to see them continue to operate that way and not throw it out the window in an emotional decision. And time will tell if they're right or not.
  22. While I'm disappointed that the Twins didn't land Kimbrel, I hope their refusal to buy into a third year was made for the right reasons (analytics showing an imminent decline in productivity), not the wrong reasons (money). The Cubs can swallow the money if Kimbrel goes south, the Twins do not have the same luxury. Unfortunately, we'll likely never know why the decision was made.
×
×
  • Create New...