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

wyowib

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    49

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 wyowib

  1. wyowib
    Houston's had a few more years of their developmental system being in place. My frustration with the previous FO was a lack of a developmental system, by today's standards. If 2 years from now some of the players in a+ and below aren't translating to the show then I won't be as optimistic as I am now. (not commenting on aa and above because the lower levels are the ones that will give more accurate value to this developmental approach)
  2. wyowib
    But wouldn't having a great hit tool qualify as athleticism? It might not be the traditional "measurables" gospel, but as I posted above I'm very happy with the new direction of the Twins org. To get to my point; it seems analytics have started to redefine the definition of athleticism.
  3. wyowib
    From the previously mentioned Ringer article, “When I came there and saw our player-development goals, I was like, oh my word. This is stuff you can’t work on,” Fast says. “It was stuff like, ‘Improve your command.’ How’s a pitcher supposed to go into the off-season and improve his command? He needs a drill. He needs to know how to measure if he’s getting better.” This, this, and this! Maybe it's the educator in me but I never (ok, maybe not never, we all have to learn) understood the idea that players could, essentially, "just develop". And it came down to 1 simple word, "how?". That's the big reason analytics have taken hold and been successful, by addressing the "how are we going to reach our goal?" question. My big frustration with the previous regime and the reason I'm very happy with the, kinda still, new guys.
  4. wyowib
    Yeah, but I got sick of the "safe pick" or to put in another format, the "twins way" picks ( like Wimmers and Micheal), here's to getting a Yellich or Trout in the first half of the draft.
  5. wyowib
    Interesting, the "helium" prospect is the choice...
  6. wyowib
    Love, love, love this move! For the past few years it's been a question of if he can bring it all together; but he didn't have it "all" to bring together, great overall numbers but abysmal strikeout numbers. This year he has shown that he can strike people out at a good clip, though his other numbers suffer when he does. He's shown he can do it all, now let's see if he really can bring it all together. He was known to be super raw when drafted, but many analysts said they wouldn't be surprised if he becomes the best player from that draft. We've all been patient, but he is still pretty young. I love the aggressiveness with this move, being as there seemed to be others who were ahead of him. Hopes he trusts his talent and the process; and grips-it-and-rips-it. I'm not projecting that he reaches his ceiling, but super happy that this opportunity arose to start the process of "what you got kid, step up and prove it". If it doesn't work out, no biggie, many have already written him off. It's free money if he can become even a #3.
  7. wyowib
    I don't understand the correlation between the inability of the previous regime to develop talent (and they were completely inept in this regard based on history) and the perceived notion that the current administration continues to fail in this regard. Who knows if this FO can develop talent, but it is very obvious that they haven't been given time to prove anyone right or wrong. I do like that they are aggressive with promotions; Arraez, Kiriloff, Graterol, Rooker, Lewis, Miranda, Larnach, Jeffers, Enlow, Balazovic, and Jax are all players that have been aggressively promoted (I consider them being aggressively promoted because they all have some combination of being in their 1st full year (or less) of pro ball, youth for level of competition, and/or coming off of recent serious injury). We'll see, in time, if it works, but I'm encouraged by the process and recent results.
  8. wyowib
    In the 1st few months of their tenure, they didn't accept "penny's on the dollar" for dozier, last off season they hired a bunch of people that were widely considered to be great hires by non-Twins fans. They haven't even been given a chance/time to start to change the culture of this organization; and the culture needed to change, judging by the lack of prospect development in the past decade. NFL GMs are supposed to have 3 years, I've read that in MLB, it's more like 5 considering the developmental curve of prospects. I love their approach because it's focused on solid, sustained, success and not just emotional "here and now" immediate gratification. Who knows if it will work out, but I'm willing to give it a chance, which takes more than 20 months to determine. The Astros, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, and Yankees have all focused on building from within and it's working for them. Sure they can afford to take more financial risks than the Twins (Dodgers the most obvious example), but that doesn't take away that they've built their foundation on internal development.
  9. wyowib
    This. It reminds me of a few years ago when, quite a few, were posting about essentially "drinking the kool-aid" when it came to prospect value, completely ignoring that non-Twins fans were hyping the current wave in their analysis. This FO has gotten, from non-Twins fans, great marks on their potential when hired, and in this last off-season with the people they've brought in to realize their vision (coaches, trainers, analytics people). I don't get the constant judgement of their moves before they've even made them, 2017 draft and whether they could sign Enlow as an example (and when they did, posters who questioned if they "over thought" or "tried to get too cute" responded with "but it might not have worked out"). Most on this site wanted change from the previous FO, but a vocal portion don't feel comfortable with what a change in the process actually means. Less than 2 years ago the Twins were the worst team in baseball, give the new guys a chance, non-Twins fans think we're in for good times if we do.
  10. wyowib
    Can't tell you how much I love the Violet Femmes reference.
  11. wyowib
    I don't think the correlation is apt. Trading a former rule 5 RP is not the same as trading a top 15ish (this year) starter who can be included as a foundational piece for the next 5 years (if extended). If Gibson gets traded for a good/great return I won't complain and will be happy (I'd prefer to extend him), but I don't think this trade is indicative of an approach to Gibson; I think it's seizing opportunity when it's presented and appropriate.
  12. wyowib
    Not too long ago, the top 3 levels were always in the running in their respective leagues. Those players are now not translating that culture of winning to the MLB level. I agree that a culture of winning is an important component of development, but perhaps people like dougie baseball were let go because they were too focused on winning in the moment instead of player development. My big issue with the last FO was their historical failings of developing talent. This past year, the new FO shook things up and brought in a bunch of new bodies that focus on development (some of the moves were lauded by non-Twins fan analysts). Consensus tells that and NFL GM should be given 3 years, I've read that new baseball management should be given 5 years to evaluate progress (based on the developmental component of baseball). This FO wasn't even 6 months in before people started attacking them for the non-Dozier trade. They're less than 2 years in, have shown to think outside the box and adapt, have been roundly praised by non-Twins-fan analysts, yet, there's a loud voice that seems to want them to fail, criticizing even the smallest move they make. Some moves are confusing, which every fan of every team deals with, but I love the direction this FO is taking the team, and I have more hope for sustained success for this team than I've had in almost 2 decades.
  13. wyowib
    I've never understood the perception that proximity to the majors increases value. Mejia has a low ceiling and debatable floor. Escobar isn't an established star that can garner elite prospects; he's a career utl man having a career year; the perfect player to trade for younger, projectable lottery tickets instead of a "possible" 5th starter from AA. The best teams in the game have started seeing the building of an MLB team as a process, that process has it's foundation in minor league talent. If you can't get 1 "elite" prospect in a trade, then I like going the young lottery ticket route for a player like Escobar.
  14. wyowib
    The current yankees (purposely didn't capitalize) didn't build their team by trading their minors away. It's been well documented that they've focused on homegrown talent in an attempt to emulate the 90's. The Cubs took the homegrown approach a few years ago, and when their 1st wave was in MLB they decided that instead of trading for their perceived need (pitching) they actually traded a pitcher for Russell. The Astros and Redsox only started trading top prospects to supplement the team after they were confident the development and growth of the team was sustainable. It hasn't even been 2 years since the Twins finished as literally the worst team in the entire league. I don't think the FO has failed anybody for not selling low on the 2nd wave; trading Lewis, Arraez, Kiriloff, Graterol... last off season or even in the first part of this season would have been selling low on them and the FO would have been blasted that the returns would not have been enough to fix this year.
  15. wyowib
    I wouldn't be opposed to him being traded. But as I said before, I believe in what he's doing now. Some players have long prime years; others only have a couple. When Gibson was drafted, he was a consensus top 15 pick (many had him in the top 10) based on talent. He fell due to his injury and the Twins took a chance. If he's living up to promise, then we can expect a few more years of his current production, which would be awesome for a team that hasn't had a decent rotation in over a decade. Again, not opposed to trading him for a good return, but taking a leap-of-faith on him continuing what he's doing now has a higher probability of success than taking a leap-of-faith on another teams prospect.
  16. wyowib
    The FO has been pretty aggressive with promotions of young prospects over the past year; I'd like them to turn it up a notch and get Kiriloff up to AA
  17. wyowib
    Don't know why my response was separated from the op I was responding to, still new to posting (though I've been a "lurker" since this sites inception).
  18. wyowib
    So if he's signed to a 4 year extension, that makes him the same age that Santana is now (or there abouts). I'm a believer in what he's been doing, and having 2 out of 5 spots essentially locked down for the next 3-4 years (Berrios timeline) with consistent, above average-to-better pitchers, is better than we've experienced in a long, loooong, time. I guess it comes down to whether or not people believe that a couple of the pitching prospects can make it in the next 3-4 years to fill in or, in some cases, more than just be mlb filler (romero, graterol, thorpe, gonsalves)
  19. wyowib
  20. wyowib
    In spring training? I don't think that's fair. He's a 20 yo seeing his first action after a year off due to surgery to his throwing arm. And what you described is the literal definition of "anecdotal".
  21. wyowib
    To be more clear on my previous post, if this happened to my daughter I would want him "gone", didn't mean to imply I would simply fire him.
  22. wyowib
    If it were my daughter, I'd want him gone, and/or hated him until he were (the approach his own brother seems to take). Our society is one in which roman polanski and woody allen have continued long careers after the horrible stuff they've done. I don't care for either so I'm not making excuses, just establishing a baseline. Change only occurs through a process, and in today's social media climate, there is no process; just judge, jury, and executioner. There is opportunity for some organization to be proactive in implementing a system to teach their employees a different narrative. I want the Twins to be that business, but you can't get there if you shy away from individuals that made a life altering choice before they could legally drive. I think there are some in today's society that you can't forgive (allen, polanski), but others that can be a part of the process that changes the narrative.
  23. wyowib
    IIRC, his crime occurred when he was 13, went to court when he was 15. I think the Twins should try to sign him. We live in a society where rehabilitation is the goal for people who commit crimes (though I'm not sure "rehab" is the right term to use for the criminal actions of a 13 year old child). While I don't advocate the Twins being willy-nilly about who they bring into the fold, I do want them to get ahead of the curve with addressing young athletes when it comes to the #metoo movement (I know it's not a direct correlation with this particular case); take some of the money saved in jettisoning Hughs and invest in a comprehensive program that addresses the issue in the minor leagues i.e. education for these kids/young men. Be proactive; the PR will be positive. I have a 10 year old daughter, I get the outrage, but this kid was a child himself when he made his horrible decision; if this isn't an example of someone that can be "rehabilitated" than what is?
×
×
  • Create New...