Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jkcarew

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,093

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 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 jkcarew

  1. jkcarew
    I acknowledge that the plan is well-reasoned...and 'responsible' in terms of long term flexibility. But, how does it make you better in 2020...for the window that's in front of them? You now have an unproven commodity in left field, and another at first base (or third base), while your pitching should be better, but not great by any means. Agree that you try to extend Buxton...only because he's the obvious buy-low opportunity. Would be shocked (and disturbed, in an odd way) if his camp caved and didn't make a bet on him becoming a legitimate star.
  2. jkcarew
    If the Twins were to (very hypothetically ) splurge on any position other than pitcher...I'd be ok it being 3rd-base. Doesn't seem like any needle-moving options currently in the organization once Sano moves. And I love Rendon. Having said that, I do think his AAV will equal/exceed Machado's...meaning north of $30M. And since Machado was 3 years younger than Rendon will be, and Machado got 10 years...I think Rendon will get 7-8. So, would I do that? Probably not. Also, Gordon doesn't make us better in left field. Although, if Rosario helped return Jon Gray, it would probably be a net win. Gordon is most decidedly NOT an above-average fielder at this point. His most recent GG was won, as they often are, by reputation alone...and would probably be exhibit A in how meaningless that award is. He's a 36-year old outfielder...that can't hit.
  3. jkcarew
    I like the concept of #1. Go for it in 2020...and the outfield cavalry (Kiriloff, etc) is coming for 2021. It would be bold to say the least. And it could work. But.. ...you only addressed a relatively small portion of your pitching issues...meanwhile, you've created a second hole on the infield. And you've tied up a huge portion of available capital in doing so. To me, if you're going to do something as risky as this, it needs to directly address the biggest opportunity. And for the Twins, that's not an outfielder (even assuming Rosario can't improve on 2019), and it's not a number 2 or 3 starter...it's a stud at the top of the rotation. Does that mean you do nothing if that deal is not there? No. But it also doesn't mean you should feel the need to make a similarly huge/risky move where the payoff wouldn't be the same. That's what this deal would feel like to me.
  4. jkcarew
    Don't see how this (Ahmed) makes you better. Makes you better defensively, and worse offensively. The way the game is played now, offense is a must-have...infield defense is a nice-to-have. If you're trading prospect capital on anything other than pitching right now (and not sure why you would)...you'd be better off just getting a 1st or 3rd baseman who can rake. And literally any SS in major league baseball is a more likely trade candidate than Lindor. Just say'in.
  5. jkcarew
    I can see scenarios where it would make sense to extend every one of these guys... Maybe you trade (or plan on trying to trade) multiple outfield prospects; maybe you believe Sano/Buxton have what it takes to solve their lingering challenges, etc., etc. Of course, it won't play out that way. Among other things, it depends on what the player wants to do. And it's always worth remembering that extending any of these guys on anything close to reasonable terms (say, if you're not high on Rosario at this point) doesn't preclude trading them later...it could even help along those lines.
  6. jkcarew
    I'd like to see him hit at least like a good outfield prospect at the AA/AAA level before I'd even consider him as a regular first-baseman at the major-league level. Wouldn't think we'd see him before the end of the year unless he's mashing...AND at least one of Kepler/Buxton/Rosario are injured or gone. To me, he's either in your plans as a starter in 2021...or you trade him between now and next season's deadline.
  7. jkcarew
    Guaranteed to be unintended consequences. Still, might be the right move...we'll see how the tests play out. But, it's way down the list in priority of things that need to be tweaked, IMO.
  8. jkcarew
    Last we heard of Gonsalves, Wes Johnson was on a mission to add 2-3 MPH to his fastball. Within two weeks of those reports, the elbow fails. Then he’s cut loose. Hope he’s healthy. If so, my guess is the Mets have him focus on what the bigger issue was. That being his command and getting the ball anywhere close to where he wanted it.
  9. jkcarew
    It’s easy to imagine Graterol beginning the season in the rotation. But, if he does...it’s all but impossible to envision him finishing the season in the rotation, unless he’s shut down for an extended stretch. That’s the catch. If you want to ‘count’ Graterol as a starter in 2020, the best you can hope for is about 3/4 of a starter...probably something more like 2/3. Still, that might be the call to make if you feel he’s a starter in the long run. But, if so, I would want the FO to consider him a number 5 (ish) option at least for 2020...and invest on the top and middle accordingly.
  10. jkcarew
    You protect the top-end international guys. You just do. (The fact that they become rule-5 eligible at such a ridiculously early point in their development, is a topic unto itself.) But it's about the ceiling. And especially in the day of tanking teams and 26-man rosters, more of these types will be targeted. Has Javier played his way out of being defined as a 'top-end' guy? Not in my book...yet. But it's reasonable IMO if one draws a different conclusion.
  11. jkcarew
    Nobody's making EE a full-time first-baseman at this point...least of all a club like the Twins that has enough infield defense issues as it is.
  12. jkcarew
    Your catcher of the decade caught a grand total of about 300 games in the decade....less than half the games played during the 4 years he was ‘playing’ the position. Meanwhile, your honorable mention catcher caught about 150 games. That leaves about 1150 games in the decade caught by guys that don’t get a mention.
  13. jkcarew
    So, the Twins will splurge on a reason to play their second best hitter even less? Don’t know why anyone thinks Rocco is inclined to play catchers at first on their ‘off’ days..when he had the perfect opportunity to do so last year, and went out of his way to NOT do so. The ‘talk’ referred to of utilizing Garver at first more is coming from everywhere...except the Twins organization. Given the other priorities, the only way I’d get behind this move would be if a full-time conversion to first base happened for Garver.
  14. jkcarew
    Not going to have power with that swing. This year, with the juiced baseball, he projected to about 7...by far and away more than he has ever hit in a season. He’s young, but the BABiP comes from his willingness to slap the ball around the field. And if his BABiP settles at .310, he’s not going to have that much value...even if the HR’s ticked up a bit. In the meantime, I think he’s a legit BA and ball-in-play guy...on a lineup where that fits a need. And I think that’s the important part for now.
  15. jkcarew
    So, we got a guy that needs to be fixed. And he'll have to be fixed while on the major-league roster. Sure is good to be playing in the AL Central! (until the post-season, of course.)
  16. jkcarew
    "...Randy Dobnak is the best internal option to remain in the rotation with Jose Berrios." Even if you disagree...the fact that this is even arguable should scare all Twins fans...and hopefully, it will scare the FO just as much.
  17. jkcarew
    "Cease finished the year strong with a 3.00 ERA in September, but his last three starts came against the Angels, Mariners, and Tigers." You could make a similar comment about literally every good number a Twins pitcher (or hitter) posted in 2019. The Twins strength of schedule in 2019 was historically low. Like, about as low as any team has had in recent history. The Twins won 32 of 69 games they played against >.500 teams. The White Sox won 29 of 69 games they played against >.500 teams (not including the Twins). Having said that, I think the White Sox are probably another year away...2021...we'll see what this off-season brings. But, it certainly looks like they're coming. It's just a matter of when.
  18. jkcarew
    You know you're riding hot as a manager, when giving a guy with a 155 wRC+ only 350 plate appearances is hailed as brilliant. Just say'in. The list of qualifiers with a better wRC+ than Garver last year consisted of Trout, Yelich, Bregman, Cruz, Bellinger, and Springer. One theory is that the extra at-bats will expose him (to more tough right-handers, etc.), as well as tire him out. But, if Rocco plays it the same in 2020, and Garver does the same thing, I hope they move him to a position where he can play every day. It's not like the extra rest is ever going to turn him into a plus defender back there.
  19. jkcarew
    You mean he's going to be a post-season star for a WS-winning team!!? If so, I DEFINITELY want the Twins to be the team that signs him.
  20. jkcarew
    The organization seems to be short on third-basemen and first-basemen. By that, I mean, prospects that are infielders and likely (in the near future) to hit at the level of a major-league 3rd-baseman...or the even-higher bar of a major league 1st-baseman. For that reason alone...and with all the holes to be filled elsewhere (primarily pitching)...we need Sano to keep making strides...even small ones.
  21. jkcarew
    What does that look like? You play him at all the positions other than SS that he might be asked to play? You've basically eliminated his chances of being able to play short-stop at an every-day major league level...or, you've decided that you will (when the time comes) develop him at short while he's at the major league level. Not worth it. It's relatively easy for an elite athlete to transition from SS to somewhere else,...vs the other way around. I'm arguing that the LOW risk move is to continue to focus his development at SS rather than guess where he might fit in when his bat demands that he move to the major league club. The HIGH risk path is to siphon significant development time away from SS by guessing where he might fit when that time comes. (And no, I don't consider playing AFL games at 3rd...and occasional minor league games at CF, etc. to be inconsistent with the low risk path. The question is, where should he focus his development at this time.)
  22. jkcarew
    Why would Polanco be 'entrenched' at SS, if Lewis is better than Polanco there? Under your original premise that Lewis is a better defensive shortstop than Polanco (with further development), you play Lewis at short...and Polanco moves. You always play the best defender at SS.
  23. jkcarew
    Then there is absolutely no reason not to go down that path. Yes, expose Lewis to other positions to ensure that things aren't totally foreign depending on how events unfold. But SS is where the highest upside is for any player's value...and it's the most difficult from a technical standpoint. Focus development there until the above sentence is proved false. (Or, I guess...until Buxton is traded or forced to retire.)
  24. jkcarew
    Agree that his draft position is a sunk cost and shouldn't impact 'where he adds the most value'. Still, I'd be disappointed if a corner is where he adds the most value. With all the speed and athleticism he's purported to have...it would be at least mildly disappointing if he skill level is such that the speed/athleticism is marginalized by having to play in a corner. It would mean, basically, that he's doesn't have more defensive upside skill-wise than even Polanco. And also that the offensive threshold for what will make him valuable rises.
  25. jkcarew
    I think the theory only works if the top bullpen arms are all comparable, about the same. And if I had that, I'd just go 1960's/1970's on the bit. Back then, the best bullpen arms regularly (even usually) pitched multiple innings per appearance. If/when the rule changes (3 batter min), things hopefully will migrate in that direction at least some. You'd hope that bullpen arms will have to evolve more to guys with pitches that are decent against all hitters and evolve somewhat away from guys that have pitches that are only effective against left (or right) handed hitters. If the LOOGY can no longer be justified on the roster...there's less reason to not let a reliever (that's not getting killed) pitch more than 3 outs.
×
×
  • Create New...