Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jkcarew

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,576

  • 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jkcarew

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. jkcarew
    The sequence matters when you score score a boat-load of runs early and have a 8 run lead in the 5th inning. In that case, you've burned through an arm that you didn't need to burn through. The data will tell the tail on whether/how much this is effective, and at what cost in terms of how rosters are managed and what that may impact (e.g., bench offense). We don't have that data yet. But it looks like we're going to get it. I have no problem with the Twins trying it with their marginal starters.
  10. jkcarew
    Interesting. Thanks. And my argument would not be that Gonsalves has no chance based on the debut, or even that I would have Stewart ranked higher than Gonsalves. Just that based on the small sample my eyeballs experienced this fall, I wouldn't put a distance of 13 prospects between the two, as Seth has here with Gonsalves at 7 and Stewart at 20. But that's what makes these things fun!
  11. jkcarew
    Don't know why you'd do away with the leagues. Doesn't solve anything...other than the DH question, and the DH discrepancy hasn't proven to be a huge issue over time. IMO, you should not only retain the two leagues, but do away with the inter-league play. In 2020, we don't need Mike Trout to play in our home ballpark in order to 'see' him play. I do like the idea of reducing the schedule when you add the two teams. Also, IMO, with the improved access to global talent, MLB could withstand expansion without a huge drop-off in quality of play. Whatever quality of play issues currently existing are the result of how the game is approached/played...not a thin global talent pool.
  12. jkcarew
    No to DeGromm. Only because I'm from the school that one major award should go to a pitcher, and one to a position player. This, IMO, regardless of the implications regarding what WAR might have to say in terms of the 'valuable' part of the MVP. I don't think there is a right/wrong here. Just preference. Maybe it's time to change the system: Pitcher of the Year; Batter of the Year; Player of the Year. The first two would/should have more objectivity and be highly data-driven. The last, basically, becomes the replacement for the current MVP...along with all the subjectivity (pitcher/non-pitcher, pennant relevance, etc., etc.). This also would be better in the event the Shohei Ohtani thing becomes real/common/enduring.
  13. jkcarew
    Why still the large gap between Gonsalves and Stewart? We know Gonsalves has had the better minor-league career to date. But so MUCH better that we would ignore Stewart's initial promise, his youth (actually a few months younger than Gonsalves), not to mention our own eyes when watching how the two responded to major league hitters this fall? I'd probably have Gonsalves lower and Stewart a bit higher...but might have Gonsalves rated slightly ahead based on his potential for more swings and misses if he ever develops the ability to get ahead major-league batters....which is a pretty big if at this point. Unless the reports of Rortvedt looking solid defensively have been premature/false...he's too low.
  14. jkcarew
    66 comments on the claiming off waivers of one Michael Reed. This site never lets me down!
  15. jkcarew
    There's still hope that Sano can become a Puig-like player in terms of offensive production. We're definitely at a point where consistent 120-130 OPS+ production out of Sano would be a significant win, both for him and the club. Also, interesting that the Dodgers didn't see fit to start Puig in 3 of the 11 games in the NLDS/NLCS rounds...and was replaced in a 4th. A 120 OPS+ (Puig 2018) and a great arm amounts to not much more than a nice piece when you have 5 OF options with better OPS+ than Eddie Rosario produced this year. And this a team that is not that close to being as good overall as at least 3 different teams in the AL.
  16. jkcarew
    It's hard to admit as a fan of the Twins that a rebuild would be the best path...especially so seemingly early in the Buxton/Sano era. But, IMO, past failures can't inhibit future actions. Just because the last rebuild was so recent and/or didn't work, doesn't mean that rebuild can't be the correct path faced with the current situation. Having said that, I do think that the choice of approach for the Twins in 2019 is NOT easy/obvious. But I think another year of half-measures is very risky. Going half-way and hedging and hoping...in either direction...is the exact recipe for winning 75-85 games a year and never accomplishing anything meaningful.
  17. jkcarew
    Yes, we 100% disagree on everything above (Twins relative to top of AL)... Except for that part there at the end!
  18. jkcarew
    That's one way of looking at it. But, I'd disagree in this era...or at least at this particular point in AL history. 2019 isn't going to be anything like 1987. Three great teams in the AL and (at least) one extra round to negotiate in the playoffs. The AL was anything but unpredictable in 2018, and will be similar in 2019. Houston, Yankees, Boston, are not good teams, they are championship-caliber teams that are not all going to fall of the table in 2019. Meanwhile, the Twins are not currently in the universe of these 3 teams. Could the Twins go all-in and steal a central-division crown in 2019? Maybe. I'd just as soon see a plan to REALLY compete, and to do so for an extended period of time with young and controllable talent. I'd love it if that plan gave us a chance to win 90 games in 2019. But if it doesn't, it doesn't.
  19. jkcarew
    Good article, Tom. After nearly two years of inconsistency and half-measures, the FO has been indicating the type of approach you describe for a number of months now. It's been pretty consistent since the all-star break. And the hiring of a very young manager with zero managing experience at any professional level, and whose outstanding trait is that he's highly "relatable"...fits right in with this approach. In lieu of my club annually operating at the top of the FA market (which isn't going to happen, not consistently over time)...I like this approach better than year after year of 'patch-and-hope'.
  20. jkcarew
    This list isn't exactly going to keep me up the night before the draft. Even "the givens" seem to be no-brainers only because the Twins figure to have so many spots available. Don't need to go very far down the list...especially of position-players...to get to those that have near-zero chance of being drafted and kept. But with the trend for rosters to carry/use more and more pitchers, picking the correct arms to protect is going to be key on a yearly basis.
  21. jkcarew
    Interesting. Thanks as always for sharing, Mike. I think cause and effect is confused in the last part of Law's statement. Aaron Boone seemed to do OK, winning 100 games...nine more than the previous year...and ending up with (probably) the 2nd-best team in baseball. The thing is, the 2018 New York Yankees of the world have seldom gambled with first-year managers. I think it's a significantly smaller gamble, with significantly more upside, when the 2019 Minnesota Twins make the call to go that route. We'll see.
  22. jkcarew
    Hope he's good. I would think we can expect some growing pains as would be expected with anyone new to the role. I'll be pulling for him, for sure. Like that they went outside the organization.
  23. jkcarew
    Nope...not at all. I did not know the story, so this is different. Thanks, Brock.
  24. jkcarew
    An extremely highly rated prospect at one time, who did, essentially, nothing in his playing career. If nothing else, he should have some good cautionary tales for Buxton and Sano.
  25. jkcarew
    The fact that the Twins staff had 57 starts...more than a third of the entire schedule...against Chi/KC/Det...and still only managed one pitcher that could post a GS of 85 or better, is faint praise for how 'good/improved' this staff really was. Also, in 2018, Berrios was flat bad against the good teams....big, ugly splits between teams over/under 500. But at least he capitalized on the big number of outings against pathetic offenses. He needs to get significantly better to be a legit number one for a good team. He seems to have the desire/determination (and youth) to make it happen.
×
×
  • Create New...