Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jkcarew

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,339

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jkcarew

  1. jkcarew
    If Sano consistently hits the way he has shown he can in streaks, he's way too low. Meanwhile, if Buxton becomes a consistently serviceable hitter, only then does he justify where you already have him ranked. Apparently, with one you assume the issues remain, and the other you assume the issues are resolved. Interesting.
  2. jkcarew
    It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not one that gnashes teeth over potential lasting impact of business decisions...even those I disagree with.
  3. jkcarew
    Can't think of one reason not to make this type of signing with this type of player, given where the Twins are. But... how is it that a potentially needle-moving free agent (and agent) chose the Twins rather than the Astros, etc.??...what with all the history of low-balling and vile treatment of players coming out of this FO. Weird.
  4. jkcarew
    Nick, did you just cite being the worse pitcher in baseball the 3rd time through as a reason to extent Odorizzi? Accumulating marginal starters that are willing to open or bullpen has become a goal? I’m with you on the age and the upside his previous track record suggests. Not so much on your other points...including September statistics garnered in the wasteland that was the 2018 AL Central.
  5. jkcarew
    Not super confident that Mejia will be very good. But he's 26, left-handed, and has been pretty good in the minors. So, if 2019 is going to be a 'let's see' year, then Mejia falls solidly into the category of those that you'll want to see.
  6. jkcarew
    Whenever the Rule 5 comes around, I'm reminded how much the rules around international players need to be changed. Diaz was eligible last year having cleared low A ball. It's dumb. And if they're worth protecting, it's dumber yet, needing to be put on the 40-man at a ridiculous stage of development (Polanco).
  7. jkcarew
    If you can add Cruz on a reasonable term, you do it. At that point you lose Cron or Austin. You have nothing invested in Cron...little invested in Austin. If Garver can't catch, you might have had to make a call on one of these guys even without Cruz. I'm still not convinced you'll have a 4-man bench.
  8. jkcarew
    Seems reasonable. Like some others, I wouldn't have minded more than a one-year deal given his age and (pre-2018) record. But then, maybe it was a combination of Schoop wanting to bet on himself, and the Twins FO still betting on Gordon. It's hard to wrap my head around a second-baseman (who can actually play the position) as large as Schoop is. If we had Corey Seager instead of Polanco, we'd have almost 1000 pounds of infield (not counting catcher). It's worth taking to marketing. The half-ton infield...the F-150 infield, maybe. Worth a try.
  9. jkcarew
    If Garver can play first AND an outfield corner at an acceptable level, he'd be a good utility guy, with the RHB. But, that's the only way he has much value if he isn't a catcher. An every-day 1B/DH that can be expected to OPS 720 to maybe 800 on a really good year? Sounds familiar...but I'm going to say no thanks.
  10. jkcarew
    Goalie?? Obviously, you didn't have a younger brother!
  11. jkcarew
    Adrinza's career OPS is 658 in about 900 PA...it was 680 last year. The Twins just got Torreyes to go with Schoop. Torreyes is at 685 OPS in a little over 600 MLB PA. Would I bet that Torreyes will be better offensively than Adrianza next year? Nope. But I appreciate the effort (small that it was). There is at least some reason to hope that Torreyes can be an upgrade offensively based on his minor league track record relative to Adrianza's. If nothing else it's a little competition or another option.
  12. jkcarew
    Yes, But there are a decent number of professional middle infielders...including players that have not yet had the opportunity to post a qualifying 750...that have materially better offensive upside than Adrianna...that have the potential to provide a pretty good bat in the role. Go get one of them...or at least explore the cost. Not easy, but I didn’t insinuate that it should be. And I agree that if we define “can OPS 750” to mean “has had qualifying seasons OPS’ing 750”...then you’re not realistically going to acquire that for the utility role.
  13. jkcarew
    What? As recently as 2016, the Twins extra infielder OPS’d 758. An if Polanco had been designated the extra that year...he OPS’d 730. They won 83 games. I want a guy with a better offensive upside in that role. They exist. So I guess ignorance would be bliss in my case.
  14. jkcarew
    Suggesting the Twins acquire two more guys that can play around the infield and OPS 750 displays an ignorance of the talent landscape? Adrianna OPS’d 700 once, in a very limited number of at-bats...last year he was at 680...and it got worse as he was exposed more. Is he anywhere close to one of our biggest issues? No. Is he fine if the role is limited? Yes. Do I think it’s realistic that your extra middle infielder can be materially better than Adrianna which was the subject of this article? 100% yes.
  15. jkcarew
    This. Seems to me that to compete these days with the way 25-man rosters are trending, you need to have 4 players among the 3B/SS/2B positions that can be consider "starters"...that you can play nearly every day depending upon match-ups and who needs rest...and/or that you can bring off the bench late with some reasonable expectation of offense. To me, if the Twins expected to win something meaningful in 2019, they'd acquire a legitimate 2B/SS...AND they would sign Escobar or the next closest available facsimile. (Gordon would be the emergency plan, unless traded...with Adrianza off the 40-man). I don't expect this to happen.
  16. jkcarew
    I agree with this. But, the bet that results in cutting bait and reloading relies on the 'failing' assets having some semblance of reasonable value. The 2018 fail was so epic in the case of these two (and the roles so key to the future), that the FO is almost forced into a 'wait-a-bit-more' approach. Truly painful. Maybe that just argues that the FO should consider themselves forced to go all-in around them for 2019? Not an easy/obvious call for the 2019 off-season, IMO. How the Buxton and Sano sagas have unfolded since they took over, has to be the absolute worse nightmare that either Falvey or Levine could have imagined when they took the jobs.
  17. jkcarew
    Deal remains on hold...maybe administrative...maybe the cash? As of now, the Mets parting ways with their 4 and 5 prospects (one of which was a #6 overall pick), plus another high-velocity young arm. That's too much, IMO...almost no matter the cash. It's not like the contract won't look horrible 2-3 years from now just because you got $60M back in 2018 as part of the transaction. But this falls under the category of a reasonable 'win now' move, IMO...the Met's being a team that automatically has a chance in the NL give their starting pitching. However, I would think this would end any speculation that the Mets would trade any of the top starters?
  18. jkcarew
    I was thinking the same thing...punching bag that he's become, I can see us pining nostalgically next year for Grossman's 360-370 OBP. The Twins OBP last year was 318. It seems scary to contemplate it going lower. Then again, the astonishing thing to me is that 318 was actually middle of the 2018 AL pack. And next year, it will probably be top half. It's the Apocalypse. You don't have to go back many years at all (10-15) to find a 318 team OBP being the worse in the league...by a wide margin.
  19. jkcarew
    Well, an aging first-baseman/DH who costs 24M and OPS+'s 115 (realistic expectation for Cano in 2019) is better than what we've had. And I'd love to have Diaz...so, I would have liked a shot at doing that deal. I would have given up about what the Mets did. Which is not much. (I assume, once named, the prospects will be of the Thorpe/Gordon/Gonsalves/Stewart/Rooker ilk...if not, I think they gave up more than they needed to.) Coming off an 89-win season, the Mariners part ways with one of their best young players...for the sole purpose of getting out from under a long-term contract. Not a great look for the game.
  20. jkcarew
    Only in Minnesota I guess does it seem like a good idea to get more first-base at bats for a league-average hitter. How 'bout we just get a first-baseman that can legitimately thump? Dodgers played 16 post-season games last year, Bellinger started at first-base in exactly zero of those games. Because the Dodgers wanted to win, and they found a first-baseman that can hit like a first-baseman. The Romero comments make sense to me. There's a pattern, and it's getting close to the time the Twins need to make a call on how to get Romero contributing for more than half a season. Astudillo is refreshingly unique. He's also a career 760 OPS guy in thousands of minor league and foreign at-bats. In 93 at-bats last year, his SLG was 100 points higher than his MiLB/foreign career, and his HR rate was nearly 3 times his that track-record. I think the fact that any of us are intrigued by the thought of him being an (nearly) every-day player, says much about what the 2019 line-up would look like at this point in time.
  21. jkcarew
    Would you really have both Austin and Cron on a 25-man at the same time? It’s pretty hard to imagine that as a good thing, IMO. Maybe simply not love at first sight with the FO for Austin...and this is another potential option.
  22. jkcarew
    "I don’t think it’s a good thing in the grand scheme of things that a competitive team from the prior year is already apparently throwing in the towel for 2019." Welcome to the unintended, yet completely predictable, consequences of TV contracts and revenue sharing....when combined with no real regulation of team player salaries. The intent of the sharing was to level the field for talent acquisition and development. But no amount of 'revenue sharing' will ever get us to 'revenue equal'. So, sharing doesn't solve for the imbalance without accompanying (and effective) governance of team salaries. Meanwhile, the real-world outcome is that...with less than 30% of revenue (on average, and shrinking) coming from gate receipts, and long-term TV contracts signed/sealed/delivered...there's precious little incentive (in any given year) for a 'small/medium' market owner to do anything other than pocket the money. It'll get worse before it gets better.
  23. jkcarew
    Agree, and good points regarding Wade. He's really only a no-brainer in the sense that he was way more likely to get chosen than the other's (save for Gordon and maybe Jay). On the other hand, it's not at all obvious that Wade would be better than Grossman in late-inning at-bats, or better than Cave all-around in a longer-term role. The larger point is that, with those two, plus Granite and Michael Reed already on the roster...how many reserve outfielders can you afford on the 40-man?...and how many can bat left-handed? For sure, not that many. You have to believe one or two of these names will be gone by spring training. With regard to Jay...given the pool of guys that need protection (not much there), and given the pitching jetsam and flotsam that already litters the 40-man (and can be eliminated without pain)...the Twins need to be absolutely POSITIVE about Jay to not protect him.
  24. jkcarew
    Agree on what the strategy is trying to do. But if the impact is only "limited" (sequencing)...it makes it all the more likely (or risky) that unintended consequences, or poor management of the strategy, will eliminate the benefit. Full transparency...I hope it fails. Or at least I hope it isn't hugely successful. It's far from stupid...I'm not saying that at all. But frankly, this is an unfortunate time, IMO, for more innovation that make it even harder to put a ball in play, easier to strike out, harder to score runs, more likely to see a greater number of pitchers in a game. Looking for some innovation that does the opposite, right now.
  25. jkcarew
    And you wouldn't have had to use the opener. And you could have let the 'starter's' pitch count dictate how many additional pitchers would need to be used. Bottom line, you are committing to a second pitcher before you have the information that is available to you in the 5th/6th inning (or the 4th for that matter). It will ultimately result in more pitchers getting used, and further stretch the concepts of what can be done with a 25-man roster. Maybe it won't be material. Maybe it will. Managers will always want the back end protection and the protection for tomorrow's game. Like many things that end up being smart, it's might not necessarily make for a better game. I fear this will be the case with anything that results in more pitchers on rosters. The jury is out...but it definitely looks like we're going to find out, which is fine with me, I can't predict exactly how this will play out.
×
×
  • Create New...