Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jkcarew

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,333

  • 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
    I've decided that, until they actually prove otherwise, I choose to believe our number 3 can play major league shortstop and our number 2 will be a starter. Makes me happier.
  2. jkcarew
    We have an obvious offensive comp for Gordon, that being Polanco who played with the same teams at the same age for his 19, 20, and 21 years...and just two years in front of Gordon. Year 19 (Cedar Rapids) Polanco 308/362/452 Gordon 277/336/360 Year 20 (Fort Myers) Polanco 291/364/415 Gordon 291/335/386 Year 21 (Chattanooga) Polanco 289/346/393 Gordon 270/341/408 Against right-handed pitching, Gordon looks better. It comes down to defense, and finding a bit of an answer against left-handed pitching. If he can play a solid major-league SS...(pretty huge divergence of opinion among the experts here)...and he can OPS+ 100(ish) which seems possible, that is a very valuable player. With regard to where he ranks...it's hard for some...me included...to wrap my head around a high school kid taken number 5 overall that ends up being a high floor, relatively low ceiling prospect. It's usually the other way around when a high-school kid is taken that high. But it could work out. This year is huge, obviously.
  3. jkcarew
    Yep. I think most (including me) that feel like Palacios is being under-valued in some of the reaction, still would have made the same 'choice' regarding which of the four to trade for Odorizzi...and absolutely would have pulled the trigger on this deal. Whether we end up being right about that...whether it end's up being a good trade...I'll tell you in three years
  4. jkcarew
    It was 11 HR is 276 plate appearances. Sorry.
  5. jkcarew
    I agree. PART of the reason Palacios is ranked significantly behind our other three SS prospects is simply that one of those was a number 5 overall draft pick, one a $4 million Dominican bonus baby, and the other a number 1 overall pick. The 13 HR in under 300 PA last year at Cedar Rapids was a bit of an eye-opener...and, if nothing else, the trade seems to validate that MLB teams project Palacios as a SS...which is something we don't necessarily know is the case with all three of our other top SS prospects. Having said that, I agree this is a trade you make every time you get a chance. A position of organizational depth for someone that has a reasonable chance to make the major-league club a little better.
  6. jkcarew
    Honestly, even before the disappointing (so far) off-season, I was more excited about 2019 than 2018...and more excited about 2020 than 2019. And the FO is acting as if they felt the same. I'm not saying that I'd be willing to defend what has transpired so far. This certainly has rattled the faith that the FO would take advantage of any future "whatever it takes" moments. Still, I like the core, the on-the-verge prospects, and I'm thinking this window is not going to slam shut on us.
  7. jkcarew
    The players are bigger and the modern ballparks are smaller...so, I don't see the trend for trying to hit the ball in the air reversing any time soon. I guess, maybe some type of pitch or delivery will prove to be materially successful in mitigating launch in the future and cause a shift? What is smart, does not necessarily make for more interesting baseball, though. Diversity of swings and styles of play are dying. Everyone has the same swing, and fewer and fewer seem capable of adapting it if the game situation simply calls for putting the ball in play. And the strike-out rates, which this evolution contributes to, are already at absurd levels.
  8. jkcarew
    Kirby Puckett called...with his two world championships, his WS MVP, his 6 gold gloves, and his seven seasons with top-7 finishes in MVP voting... He said he wished he had taken more walks.
  9. jkcarew
    This. I'd be interested to hear from those that have seen both, what separates these two by such a seemingly wide margin in prospect rankings. They both had very similar success as 18-year-olds at Elizabethton. Since then, it took Palacios a little more than a year to figure out low A, but he continues to show promise. Is Javier's upside offensively just that much better? Or is it defense? Or mostly just the $4 million?
  10. jkcarew
    Yeah...I don't think they're saying that clubs are going to simply start taking their 4th and 5th best starters and automatically plug them into the late-inning role. Instead, I took the comment to mean that clubs are starting to feel or starting to find that the ability to command one great pitch is more rare than the ability to command 2-3 average pitches. At the same time, 4th and 5th guys get skipped so much, don't have a post-season role, etc., etc. I'm oversimplifying, but this is how I interpret the FG comment.
  11. jkcarew
    IMO it's easy to see what some see in Rortverdt...he's an extremely athletic catcher, with very high defensive upside, and a chance to hit half-way decently. The key words in all that being the word 'catcher' and 'defensive'. And, while I'm not much of a "he was young for his level" guy when it comes to prospects we are speculating might have actual value in the majors some day....he was REALLY young/inexperienced for his level last year. I also think he will at least start in CR, with the hope that he will settle in early and earn a promotion relatively early during the season.
  12. jkcarew
    I see the NFL challenges as political (player health, perceptions of player conduct, etc.), I see MLB's as more fundamental to their economic structure. But your point is well taken. I worry too much. The national debt has bothered me for about a quarter century now...and the current yield on a 10-year treasury bond is 3%.
  13. jkcarew
    This is true, but I see it as a bubble forming...because it really doesn't seem to make sense to me. Viewership is declining and attendance is dropping. The popularity of MLB is not on a positive trend. How long can the revenue model hold? It seems something's got to give. Admittedly, bubbles can last a long time...and sometime they don't end in ugliness because changes happen that relieve the pressure before things get too dire. Maybe we're starting to see that here. But I can't say I'm optimistic at all.
  14. jkcarew
    Nice list, Seth! By the time you're to #15, I would have been good with Morneau, Pascual, Gaetti, Gladden, Gagne, Perry...in no particular order.
  15. jkcarew
    Me too. Sign of things to come? Or just the calm before the (2019) storm?
  16. jkcarew
    Lots of good ideas posted so far, I think. Some may not be terribly viable, but I think the point is that MLB needs to get serious about this. It seems reasonable to assume that the length of game issue would be a significant factor in the slip in popularity polls that baseball has been on for a few years now. Along with considering things like pitch clock and strike zones, MLB needs to consider more radical changes like restricting the number of pitchers 'active' for each game. Or limiting the number of in-inning pitching changes available to the manager each game. The way the use of rosters has evolved along with the way managers have used pitchers has really killed the pace of play and the flow of games. Need to consider anything and everything to create disincentive for the relentless discussions on the mound and in-inning pitching changes. Unfortunately, I think MLB will get serious about fixing this only when the sponsor bubble finally bursts and the money starts shrinking. Not a second earlier. I think that day is coming, though.
  17. jkcarew
    Is there an argument for Santana in the Hall? Yes. But it's silly to compare him to Kirby Puckett (or Sandy Koufax). Postseason and championships matter...and they should. Especially when you are the undisputed star/leader of the championship team...more than once. As the very first poster mentions, the much more realistic (non-pitcher) comparison would be Tony Oliva. Would I put Santana in? No.
  18. jkcarew
    My glass is half-full today. While I feel that Gordon earned a slip down the rankings, pretty much everyone's top 10 makes me feel a little better than where we were a year ago. I feel that if Gordon isn't a short-stop, I'd rank Luis Arraez ahead of him. But we'll see. Maybe he is a short-stop. If a list is slanted toward up-side, I'm mildly surprised Akil Baddoo doesn't crack the top 10. Regardless, I'm mildly optimistic that I can think of other names that are not even on this list that I feel have a very good chance of being useful down the road as either trade material or for the major league club. Jermaine Palacios is another name that comes to mind in that regard.
  19. jkcarew
    "market deal" will be north of 6-yrs / $200M, right? Greinke got more than that two years ago heading into his 32-yo season. He got 6/206+. And that was to a mid-market club. Seems there are sufficient players in the market to at least realize that. My guess (regardless of where anyone might fall on a technical Greinke/Darvish comparison) is that this is where Darvish's agents put the floor. I see very little change of this happening for the Twins, and at that cost, I'm not sure I'd be upset if it doesn't.
  20. jkcarew
    I understand the idea behind the decision to leave the roster spots open and expose the likes or Bard and Burdi. But not to use the spots for Rodney and Kinley. Sigh. I actually would have been more encouraged if the Twins had not signed Rodney today and not taken anyone in the Rule 5.
  21. jkcarew
    I refuse to be critical of what amounts to a one-year $8 million deal...simply because I wanted the team to make bigger deals for better pitchers. I honestly don't think this deal will limit in any way what the Twins may want to consider later...including later today. Nor will it make them less likely to pull the trigger on anything. If/when they pass on the $100-$200 million pitcher, it won't be because of the $8 they've spent on Pineda. So, for what this deal is...I like it. Decent chance of representing at least a marginal improvement to the rotation or (if we end up doing better later), a huge improvement to the bullpen. And in a year where we should be in a position for it to matter. I think both sides showed creativity in this deal.
  22. jkcarew
    Yeah. I would really not want to see Lewis go based on the ceiling as it stands so early. But I think 'untouchable' is a strong word, one I think management has to avoid as much as possible. Basically, the term/concept of 'untouchable' only has meaning to me within the context of a specific offer. For instance, I am willing to go only THIS FAR for player A; meanwhile, I'll go THIS FAR for player B.
  23. jkcarew
    Yikes. Not me. To me you don't trade the number 1 overall pick, when that pick is a position player, and especially when that pick is going to be a middle-of-the-field defender, to obtain any pitcher. At least not until that number 1 pick has had a chance to show you some cracks that will limit that ceiling. That day may come for Lewis (I sincerely hope it doesn't)...but I don't think we're there at this point. Too soon. Now when I say "any" pitcher.....well, let's just say Archer would not be an exception to the rule.
  24. jkcarew
    To me the only thing worth quibbling about in a hypothetical Gordon-Jay-Granite for Cole trade would be how to factor in the issue of only getting 2 years of control. If you were confident that you could solve for that problem, I don't see why the names would bother a Twins fan. Gordon did not seem 'almost ready' for the entire 2nd half of last year. While he's been younger than his competition all along the way, based on what he's shown offensively so far, it seems a great deal of his value will be dependent upon playing a position that nobody seems convinced he can play on an every-day basis at the major league level. Granite...as a left-handed hitter (without power), has exactly zero offensive value for the twins. He's injury insurance. If you think you can significantly improve your rotation, you're going to be ok worrying about injury insurance on another day. Tyler Jay at this point is a 24 year old high-risk, high-upside, lottery ticket. Based on organizational depth, risk, fit with current roster...these guys would be at the very top of the list of prospects (that actually have value) I would be willing to move if I were Twins management.
  25. jkcarew
    Very similar to his 2013 year in Rochester, expect larger sample size since he spent so much of 2013 in the majors. A lot of love here for Wade. Think he'd be interesting if he developed some power, but he really isn't trending that way. Slugging actually trending the other way. The right-handed hitting 4th outfielder discussed in the thread could turn out to be the primary subject of this article, could it not? The 14 games they stuck Garver in the OF this year in Rochester tells me that the organization was at least dreaming that he might have that capability. (That and pretty overt reluctance to start him behind the plate, even when Castro was on the shelf.) Meanwhile, Grossman's OBP as a right-handed batter continues to be elite. If you're healthy, the 4th outfielder doesn't have to field like Paul Blair. Defense becomes more of an issue if, based on splits, you are forced to platoon Rosario or Kepler. Admittedly, Molitor appears close to that with Kepler right now.
×
×
  • Create New...