Jump to content
Our top free agent ranking is up to 75 names; click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jkcarew

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,619

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 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 jkcarew

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. jkcarew
    The 360-370 OBP plays a lot better when you don't have to stick him in the outfield on an every-day basis. He would have made a great bench bat before the days of 15 pitchers on a 25-man roster. Now, his kind look like a dying breed.
  4. 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.
  5. jkcarew
    If it were possible to steal first base, Hamilton might have lead the league every season of his career. The sub-300 OBP puts a severe hurt'in on the stolen base numbers. Here's one... Billy Hamilton would need to steal 637 more bases to catch which hall-of-fame outfielder from the turn of the century? (No, not this century. The other one.)
  6. jkcarew
    The player we were able to turn into Kevin Chapman?
  7. 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.
  8. jkcarew
    The minor league player's predicament is at least 50% the fault of the players union. The rank and file could have made minor league player pay/benefits a negotiating priority in previous collective bargaining sessions...and have repeatedly refused to do that. The greed has been quite evident on both sides through the years.
  9. jkcarew
    There's really never been that much of a discrepancy between sports if you consider college football the equivalent, or at least near-equivalent, of minor-league baseball...which one should (IMO) with regard to coaching qualifications. A very, very high percentage of NFL staffs consist of people with NFL or college playing experience...just like a very high percentage of MLB staffs consist of guys with MLB or MiLB playing experience. Meanwhile, MLB is probably already ahead of the NFL in willingness to consider candidates with no "post-high school" playing background.
  10. jkcarew
    This article does a good job of making the argument that the price would be relatively low. Unfortunately, it does an even better job (to me anyway) of explaining how his performance in recent years plays into the 'low' price. I agree that the injuries, given their nature, are not high-risk for reoccurring. But, some injuries result in lasting degradation of performance, and we have no way of knowing if that's what we're seeing/saw in 2017/2018, especially with the shoulder. Is he likely to make our 2019 starting rotation better. Yes, I think so. But it's not obvious that he'd be a huge needle mover at this point, especially given how much the needle would need to be moved in 2019. On the other hand, I could see him as a piece, if part of a big (not Twins big, but ACTUALLY big) 'all-in' plan for 2019. Absent such plan, I'd still consider him at a low price...with the hope that he bounces back and provides the Twins the opportunity of flipping him for a net gain at the 2019 deadline.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. jkcarew
    A "bridge the gap" (next wave of prospects) strategy. It's rational, IMO...even realistic, I think. IMO, it's a strategy to compete only for the division, not the pennant (too many teams in AL are a lot better than this). On the other hand, it's really only costing shorter-term money, so why not, I guess. I do think the offer for Alonso would have to be a bit sweeter from Cleveland's perspective, I think. (Not to mention the unlikelihood of Cleveland agreeing, under any circumstances, to plug a hole for their top competitor. But I get the point...a proven bat that provides a short-term solution at 1B)
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. jkcarew
    Nice piece! Takes a good approach, IMO, for committing to go for it in 2019. Gallo would be my nitpick. Definitely addresses an immediate need. But, either spend that package (or more) for something better than Gallo. Or, spend less on Gallo. At least I'd try hard for either of those outcomes, before I'd offer this package for Gallo. He's not that valuable...OPS+ 108 (107 in 2018)...defensive flexibility large muted by the fact that he's a poor defender in the outfield.
  23. jkcarew
    I do think Jon Gray would be a material upgrade to the 2019 rotation. Real possibilities moving to a different home park...if he can reverse the HR spike at the same time. But, with the number of young starters the Twins have on the roster, I would see the acquisition of another starter of Gray's ilk as a 'win now' move...and, for that reason, maybe more likely that the Twins would spend prospects, potentially pitching prospects, rather than Kepler in that type of deal? Anyway, he is an interesting guy.
  24. 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.
  25. jkcarew
    66 comments on the claiming off waivers of one Michael Reed. This site never lets me down!
×
×
  • Create New...