Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Only Here in Negative

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    149

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Only Here in Negative

  1. Only Here in Negative
    Um no. It seems like a strong probability that Pineda convinced the arbitrator (for the first time in PED history) that he was not aware that it contained a banned substance. So he's banned because he took a banned substance but there's no way to say that he did it intentionally and some pretty direct proof he didn't. That said, someone above indicated that maybe the reason it dropped 20 was a technical issue - something along the line of what that lying cheat Ryan Braun claimed about the test being faulty (and Braun will always be the worst of the PED cheats in my mind, he tried to take down an innocent guy who had no power). I have to think that if that was the case, Pineda would've fought it a bit more (because really, 60 vs 80 is relatively irrelevant for him) but it remains a possibility that there was some irregularity that explains the drop. So not cut and dry that it wasn't intentional because we don't have the decision but impossible to say that he took it intentionally - all of the evidence points towards this being stupid but accidental. Which does the Twins nothing but makes it easier to root for Pineda and contemplate bringing him back, especially if he feels he owes the team something.
  2. Only Here in Negative
    It would not be unusual for a diet-type pill to include a diuretic along with other substances that tackle the issue on another front (e.g. suppressing appetite). If Pineda was hydrating normally, he likely wouldn't be marching out to the mound and feeling like crap. That would also make some sense with Pineda's claim he had no idea. The diuretic may be a small aspect of the overall pill, which he had a clear reason to take. We obviously can't know that for sure but I think that there is certainly enough doubt to say "He was stupid" instead of "He was cheating." I also think that you're being a bit presumptuous in saying the only reason is to cover something up. Pineda is a big guy and its not all muscle. I don't think we should assume that there aren't some powerful reasons for him to be looking to lose weight (health, looks, etc.) These guys aren't robots, they're humans and they have lots of complex desires and needs.
  3. Only Here in Negative
    Yeah, this to a point. They take it seriously and the testing works. That said, with this much money on the line and the relatively easy barrier of chemistry knowledge needed to create new substances, its hard not to think that there may be drugs that baseball is not even aware of that are being abused. That's why I think the biggest thing that MLB has accomplished is making it something that isn't as open. In the 90s, players knew and it fostered everyone doing it. Bonds has always gotten a bum rap - he watched inferior players use PEDs and get glory so he did it himself. I think in today's game you have a general feeling amongst players that they don't have to use to compete. I'm not sure anyone would turn in a teammate, which would be telling.
  4. Only Here in Negative
    1. Many players from the DR have been dinged for PED use. This may be tightly controlled in the U.S. (though I think anyone familiar with the War on Drugs would find it laughable to say that we tightly control any drugs) but may not be in the DR. He could've taken a weight loss drug that included this substance. 2. You're assuming he never took anything else because he wasn't caught. He may have gotten lucky or he may have taken other pills that just didn't contain anything not on the list. 3. You're ignoring the reduction in games. That is unprecedented in the history of PED arbitration and clearly signals something. We don't know why the arbitrator did that (and likely never will), but that's pretty compelling evidence, particularly when the evidence against it is pretty tenuous. 4. Certainly a poor decision and Pineda is the one who will suffer the most for it - he's losing salary this year and will likely have to settle for less money in free agency. He may even have to take a 1 year deal, which is no small thing given his injury history. 5. Occam's razor actually supports giving him a break. The theory holds that the explanation that involves the least speculation is likely true. In this case, there's direct evidence that there was no intent to cheat from the arbitrator's unprecedented reduction. The other side is based on speculation. Its hard to construct a scenario in which Pineda is able to cheat but convince the arbitrator he wasn't. There must have been some extensive evidence.
  5. Only Here in Negative
    That's a privacy issue as negotiated with the MLB Players Union. Most actions with employers regardless of profession are not made public. It would be a pretty clear invasion of privacy to do so. These types of proceedings would regularly include person information, health information, etc.
  6. Only Here in Negative
    That's a super tough position to take. So Pineda is worse than Polanco because the other 24 guys on the team played better that year? That's an interpretation of moral relativity that I'd have a hard time with. There's always a gradient but that's a pretty stark differentiation based on something that is not in someone's control. I think we should judge someone who kills someone while driving drunk a bit differently based on circumstances that impacted the event but not because the person they killed happened to be the town librarian and mother of two instead of an elderly drunk. And even if you are comfortable with that level of relativism, the timeline doesn't work well for it. It'd be one thing if he held up a liquor store last Sunday when he knew full well that the team was doing well. Pineda presumably tested positive much earlier in the year when the Twins' playoff chances were not set in stone. Polanco tested positive in March 2018, which indicates he was taking it after a playoff season, at a time when many thought the Twins would be ready to take the next step. So both of them really screwed over their teams at times when the playoffs were not imminent but were a clear expectation.
  7. Only Here in Negative
    That's in the U,S, This could easily be something that is easier to get in the DR and was put in a supplement that a close friend brought into the U,S, Not saying it isn't insidious, just that your "it's only available by prescription" thing is not a smoking gun.
  8. Only Here in Negative
    I get you're being facetious a bit here but just for those who don't understand that, using something one time won't trigger these positives. They look for volumes of the drug that are indicative of an attempt to hide a lengthy period of PED use. Mike Trout getting a pill in his lasagna while on the road in Texas wouldn't trigger it. You have to take these things regularly. Maybe if Mike Trout pissed off the delivery guy at his favorite Chinese takeout place?
  9. Only Here in Negative
    Why did the benches clear? Is there video of that?
  10. Only Here in Negative
    No way that's the roster. 1.) Barring several injuries, no way Ian Miller and Cave both make the postseason roster. They'll either value Miller's speed or Cave's contribution. Would lean towards the latter. I also don't think Cave's spot is even guaranteed - if they choose to carry an 8th reliever, Cave would make sense to go since they're unlikely to use Marwin in the IF except maybe at 1B for Cron so he's basically the 4th OF. 2.) On that note, no way Adrianza doesn't make the roster unless someone unusual forces their way on. He's been too valuable for this team. See him making it. Odd that Ted never mentioned him, makes me think maybe he forgot him? 3.) Don't get the Astudillo love. He's funny to watch but he's been pretty legitimately bad this year. He hasn't looked very good since being back - the league seems to have figured out he'll swing at bad pitches and he gets a steady diet of stuff he won't lay off. I think a bigger question at this point is "Is Astudillo good enough to be the Twins backup catcher next year while they wait for Jeffers/Rortvedt?" And at this point, I honestly don't know. The defense is okay but not great and that bat has not played this year with an approach that is not ideal. No way he should be on the postseason roster unless several guys go down. 4.) Ted is right that Kyle Gibson being out might make postseason decisions easier. The Twins don't have a guy they'd move to the pen and immediately make a late-inning guy but they're likely to carry the 5th starter as a reliver because all 5 guys are veteran parts of the club. I just think that at this point guys like Dobnak, Smeltzer, or Thorpe are better in that long role than the 5th starter who isn't used to relieving. Interesting to watch. 5.) Lots of room in the back of the pen. Six or seven guys looking at just a few spots. Will be fun to see how that breaks.
  11. Only Here in Negative
    Astudillo is a fun guy. He’s just not the heart and soul of the team. He continually is made to seem more than he is and then doesn’t live up to it. That’s not his fault; that’s the fault of those who place their misbegotten hopes on him.
  12. Only Here in Negative
    Could put Gonsalves on 60 day DL and add Miller.
  13. Only Here in Negative
    As a reliever in 2000, Santana put up a 5.34 ERA and was pretty terrible. Granted that was as a Rule 5 guy but he wasn't much better the next year. It was year 3 he started showing that promise. The issue is that the Twins may not have the luxury to carry Romero if it takes that long. Though with a 26 man roster next year, maybe that changes? Would hate to give up on his arm.
  14. Only Here in Negative
    That is confirmation bias. In a very small sample, he's been a bit rough when he pitched two innings one day and then pitches the next. When it's one inning he's fine. And even that two inning thing is really a pretty small sample.
  15. Only Here in Negative
    Adrianza over the last 50 games has an ops of close to 1.000
  16. Only Here in Negative
    I I'll counter with this: Dyson at Oracle last year: 39.1 IP, 3.66 ERA, .709 OPS Dyson away last year 31 IP, 1.45 ERA, .577 OPS Your sample is small. If you add the two together he's pretty much the same home and away.
  17. Only Here in Negative
    Asking the obvious question: What conspiracies do you believe in? If you say moon landing, that should be warning points.
  18. Only Here in Negative
    I'll counter with this: Dyson at Oracle last year: 39.1 IP, 3.66 ERA, .709 OPS Dyson away last year 31 IP, 1.45 ERA, .577 OPS Your sample is small. If you add the two together he's pretty much the same home and away.
  19. Only Here in Negative
    Glad you liked that deal. Addressing these in point form. 1.) Also been a fan of Thorpe for like four years, he's been my guy for awhile. Only thing you're wrong on is that he MAY be the 5th starter next year. I think he's going to be a 3/4 and there's no maybe about it. He has the stuff and the makeup and the Twins have some openings. He's only going to get better. 2.) You are right that maybe Diekmann is unnecessary. I was in on him before Smeltzer and Thorpe both look viable. I'd be fine rolling with them as a second lefty, perhaps having the two of them run the shuttle in tandem. 3.) I want to take all of that salary. Maybe someone will show how paying Kennedy $16 million next year impacts the Twins ability to fill pitching holes or extend people but I remember them having little to no money committed to next year. KC is a cheap club rebuilding, that salary is a big selling point. If they take that, I could see it being a Romero-type alone. It'd be nice to save Javier/Gordon for the offseason or next deadline when prices are lower. 4.) I don't know about this. I agree its deep but its nowhere near the best. The Cubs, Indians, Astros, and Dodgers (just to name a few) have way better rotations. Berrios is the #1 but who would start Game 2? I can talk myself into any of the 4. Gibby based on last year, Pineda based on last few starts, Perez based on beginning of this year, Odo based on veteran status. I think you are right that there's no one who is substantially better than they guys we have now that MadBum is likely off the market and the Mets are going to demand so much that they trade no one. If they got a starting pitcher 07/31 for low-tier prospects, I'd be okay. But agreed that I don't see it as a priority. One solid reliever, maybe two if you get good deals. No need for a "closer"
  20. Only Here in Negative
    I want the Twins to trade with the Royals for Ian Kennedy and Jake Diekmann, with the Twins taking on all of Kennedy’s salary. I'd like to see a package built around Javier or Gordon with some of our prospering recent mid-round draft picks and guys we traded for last year attached (Steer, Celestino etc.) I just don't think it’s worth trading the big prospects this year, the market is too wild. None of the high-end guys shift the Twins chances that much since the Stros and Yankees are both really good. I know that not all prospects will turn out but I think they're likely to have more value next year. The Twins have a 5 year window here at least, let's not close it by tweaking out in year 1. And Ian Kennedy and Diekmann solve the Twins needs. They can pay Kennedy's salary as ownership shows its willing to spend. Kennedy can be paired with Rogers as a late inning guy that Rocco can match up. Diekmann is the lefty that the Twins need for the 6th. A pen of Rogers, Kennedy, Harper, Diekmann, Duffey, May and two of Stashak/Thorpe/Stewart/Romero/Smeltzer/Litttel isn't lights out but it can get the job done. This team will go as far as its hitting takes it.
  21. Only Here in Negative
    If you broadcast an opinion about a team, you have to expect people to disagree with you. Telling them how they can and can't respond to you (outside of hate speech or threats) is ludicrous and evidence that you're trying to control the narrative. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't want anyone to criticize your opinion! Keep it to yourself.
  22. Only Here in Negative
    The ball is by the ground, the runner can't see if the ball bounced or not readily. The reaction is to go home, if he hesitates or goes back and its on the ground, its an out without the runner going. Absolutely handled the right way, no way anyone said "My bad" in the dugout. More like "**** happens"
  23. Only Here in Negative
    What are you talking about? Guys get picked off on that play all the time. I can remember (but not specifically) the Twins doing it twice this year. It's one thing to say a guy should be more cautious but to say that there's no excuse is laughably ignorant of actual baseball. Taking a normal lead and then moving another 2-3 steps towards home with the pitch means that Kepler is likely 5-6 steps from the bag. That was a hard smash and Olson was immediately up and throwing. An entire infield away is like 125 feet. MLB players make that throw in an instant. Kep had no chance. Ironically, the only people in the league who aren't doubled off on that are probably your pitchers and slow plodders who don't take much of a lead because they aren't going home on anything but the most obvious wild pitch anyway. Any player with any speed at all is too far from the bag. That's just bad luck.
  24. Only Here in Negative
    The Arraez and Sano errors were also pretty soft errors. Yeah they should get those but neither was a particularly simple play. Sano's was a smash that he didn't scoop right. It's an error but not one to complain too much on. Arraez hurried a throw after a bad hop. The throw probably needed to be hurried and I want him going for the out on that one. Arraez's move to third was bad though. No upside to moving to third, wait for the call.
  25. Only Here in Negative
    I'm sorry but no way that Cave being doubled off on Kepler's smash is a baserunning error. With the normal lead he's taking and the momentum towards home on the pitch so as to be ready to score on a wild pitch, there's no way he's going to get back before Olson throws the ball to third. I have no issue with him breaking for home on that one - if you're not getting back you might as well score in case the ball hit the ground. That's some insane nitpicking.
×
×
  • Create New...