Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chaderic20

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    273

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chaderic20

  1. chaderic20
    The excuse of someone not knowing how to bunt is a non-starter for me. If you don't know how to bunt, learn, it's your job. We all have to learn how to do new things in our jobs to stay relevant, so you get no sympathy from me on that front. And to me the actual success rate of the bunts isn't really that important and misses the point. As I said earlier, the end goal is actually just to get the defense to stop shifting. Even if you're only successful 1/3 times (and I firmly believe that with a little practice, success rates would be much higher than 1/3), I bet that would be enough for opposing teams to stop shifting. Anyway, I'd rather be successful 1/3 times bunting against the shift, than probably 1/5 trying to hit into a shift (I'm completely guessing at that number and have no stat to back it up).
  2. chaderic20
    The whole "just bunt against the shift" thing seems to be so obvious to so many people, but yet no one hardly ever does it. Is there something that we fans just don't see or get that players, coaches, and front offices do? As others have said, even if you're "too proud" to bunt, it would only take a handful of times doing it, to show you're willing to do it, for teams to stop shifting on you. You can then go back to pulling the ball through your normal side. What am I missing?
  3. chaderic20
    http://m.mlb.com/video/v1898204283
  4. chaderic20
    Gameday Audio doesn't have blackout restrictions, only MLB.TV, and boy do they have blackout restrictions in Iowa...
  5. chaderic20
    Mine is working fine.
  6. chaderic20
    I can understand if someone in an opposing front office starts talking to players on another team, but players talking to each other? That seems silly and impossible to police. I'm sure, as others have said, it's all in the legal details, but still, it just seems overboard to go after a player for a comment like that.
  7. chaderic20
    So, Aaron Judge apparently told Manny Machado that he'd "look good in Pinstripes". And this apparently is a no-no according to MLB, claiming it's "tampering". Is it just me, or is that about one of the stupidest things MLB has said/done recently. Do they not think that players are constantly telling each other, "Hey, you should come play for us!" I mean, how often do you hear during the offseason that so-and-so is recruiting so-and-so to their team? Why is it suddenly a big no-no for Judge to say he'd like to play with Machado? And MLB wonders why they're losing their audience...
  8. chaderic20
    Any chance Burdi could become part of a trade for Cole? Or is that not how the trade possibility part of Rule 5 works?
  9. chaderic20
    What's the MLB average? Which Twins fall above and below that line? Is the data broken down such that you can see a player's offensive versus defensive speeds?
  10. chaderic20
    Regarding Antony - someone had to be named the interim GM, Antony is as good as anyone. That doesn't mean he's even in consideration for the full time job, let alone a lock for it. Let's not make assumptions we have no basis for.
  11. chaderic20
    So the Biogenesis guys wouldn't have their contracts voided if they never failed a test. Whatever the criteria are currently for a PED suspension, whether it's a failed test, or just other overwhelming evidence (ARod), I would be in favor of their contract being voided, or I'd be willing to compromise and say void the contract on second offense. The drunk driving thing biggentelben brings up is actually a good analogy. Someone gets a DUI, their license (aka, their "contract" with the state that allows them to drive) is voided. They have the opportunity to get it back after they prove they've cleaned up. Same goes for ballplayers whose contracts are voided. They still have the opportunity to get a new contract, it's not a lifetime ban. As for false positives, that's what the appeals process is for (I do think that absolutely nothing should happen to a player until all appeals and such are resolved, it shouldn't even be publicized that a player is in the appeals process). If you drop your appeal, I take that as an admission of guilt, because if I was falsely accused of something, and stood to lose millions of dollars because of it, I would appeal and fight it as far as I could. And I know testing isn't perfect, but it's never going to be. It's always going to be a cat and mouse game. We can't wait until testing is 100% accurate before doing anything.
  12. chaderic20
    You're missing the point though, that all of those players failed a drug test. The point of the punishment is to make taking drugs so risky for the player that no player in their right mind would do it. If you can show me one instance where a team was able to manufacture a failed drug test, I'll agree with you. But until then my point remains: If you don't want your contract voided, don't take drugs. Also, as you said, many players have done just fine for themselves after failed drug tests. So, this probably isn't even giving the owners that much leverage. As for players hitting the market at the trade deadline, I don't think this has been stated, but I've been working on the assumption that the team has the option to void the contract, not that a failed test automatically voids the contract. So, if a team doesn't want their star player to hit the open market, they can choose not to void the contract. At that point, they have then assumed the risk that the player isn't what they thought they were getting when they signed the contract.
  13. chaderic20
    A couple topics I want to address that have come up in here: 1. That statement that professional athletes aren't role models. We may not want them to be role models, and they themselves may not want to be role models, but unfortunately we don't get to decide that, and neither do they. As long as kids look up to them, which I don't think anyone would argue is not the case, then by definition, they are role models. 2. The idea that owners could use a positive drug test to get out of a bad contract. Well they can only do so if a player has a positive test. So, that's kinda the whole point of allowing owners to void contracts. If they are allowed to do that, it is a MAJOR disincentive for the player to use PEDs. And I don't see how owners could abuse this since as far as I know there's no way for them to force a positive test. The owners have no control over the outcome of the test. The player is still in complete control of their contract. If you don't want it voided, don't take PEDs. It's as simple as that.
  14. chaderic20
    PEDs aren't just for building muscle. Tons of sprinters and cyclists take them for speed and endurance purposes.
  15. chaderic20
    Honestly I could see the Twins anywhere from 75 to 85 wins, but I'm an optimist, so I'll take the OVER at 83 wins. That'll be good for 2nd or 3rd in the Central, whose winner could have as low as 85 wins.
  16. chaderic20
    Try living in Iowa where on MLB.TV you're blacked out from the Twins, Brewers, White Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, and Royals. Literally 20% of the league, or up 40% if you consider that each of those six teams is playing someone else, for a total of up to 12 teams out of 30 that you can't watch in Iowa every single day. This topic is a pet peeve of mine, and I've been figuratively given the finger enough times by MLB and cable companies that I've given up on trying to get Twins games via legitimate methods. For years, I honestly tried everything I could, up to the point that both MLB and my cable provider both stopped taking calls/emails from me trying to get Twins games. Yes, I could cough up $150+ a month to get a premium cable/satellite package with the add-on sports pack that it would take to get FS North here, but that's just not a realistic option. Especially when, as has been mentioned by others, I can find a free stream with a simple google search.
  17. chaderic20
    If both Santana and Buxton fall flat this spring, any chance Kepler gets the opening day nod in CF?
  18. chaderic20
    Yes, I do know that's how it's going to be, and that's part of why it's so frustrating. There is a clearly better way of doing things, but the Twins (and most other teams) refuse to do it. And the only reason seems to because "That's not how things are done." Might some veteran get offended or upset that he got benched? Sure, but I bet he'll gladly take his playoff share and the possibility of getting a ring.
  19. chaderic20
    I've never understood the philosophy of, "We're paying this guy X amount of money, so he has to be the starter/closer/whatever-role". Why does a player's salary determine their playing time? Shouldn't their talent and performance determine that. Why double your mistake on a bad contract by insisting on playing someone over a clearly better substitute just because they make more money? Like others have said, you've already spent the money, there's nothing you can do about that. Now your goal is to win ballgames, so use your players in whatever role will best help you achieve that goal. I'd rather have an overpaid bench warmer and be winning games, than run out a clearly subpar team while my best players sit on the bench or in the minors just to try to save face on a bad contract.
  20. chaderic20
    PWDK = Person with direct knowledge?
  21. chaderic20
    I'm a little surprised at people's reactions to Pelfrey here. For all the angst and spilled ink/pixels I see on TD about the Twins players' and staff's lack of fire/passion/desire to win/competitiveness/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, as soon as someone shows a little he gets slammed. Do I think the deserved the job? No, I think putting him in the pen was the right move. But I give him credit for coming out and saying, "No, I want more than this". And I give him credit for saying he'll be professional about it and do his duty in the pen. Personally, I wish more of our guys had the same attitude.
  22. chaderic20
    Just want to clear up one minor point. MLB.tv blackout restrictions have nothing to do with game attendance. MLB.tv blackout are designed to force people in the "home market" to buy cable TV packages. But I still agree that something needs to change. As a fellow Iowan who can't get the Twins on cable, this really annoys me. It's actually driven me to the point of finding a pirate site to stream games. And I've gotten comfortable enough with that now, that even if they did lift the blackout here, I kinda doubt I'd be willing to pony up the $100 (or whatever it is) for MLB.tv since I can stream for free from a pirate site. Call me jaded, but it's the truth.
  23. chaderic20
    My preference would be to let Sano prove he's healthy in the winter league and spring training. If he does, then bring him north right away. If not, let him work it out in AAA. For Buxton, I'd be a little more cautious, just because he effectively has not played above High A. Even if he kills it in the AFL, I'd like to give him a little time at either AA or AAA. I would have a pretty quick trigger on bringing him up though if he's performing at all adequately. But if he struggles, either because of competition level or lingering concussion effects, he's at least in a low-pressure place to work through it. I think that's a perfectly reasonable middle-of-the-road approach between the cautious and aggressive approaches to these two.
  24. chaderic20
    Trade him now. Brock mentioned Colabello as an example of why we should wait. No, Colabello is exhibit A of why Suzuki should be traded now. As Thrylos noted, Suzuki is primed for regression, so likely in 2 months when the trade deadline is here, our window of opportunity to sell high will be long gone, and we'll realize that he's not worth extending.
  25. chaderic20
    Well, the risk they take in trying to force people into paying $840+ per year is that people like me will say it's not worth that much, and then they get $0. I'm sure they have lots of people much smarter than me though who have studied where that price point is where enough people say it is worth it. But for me, it's not.
×
×
  • Create New...