Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,576

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    473

 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 ashbury

  1. ashbury
    I want balance. I don't want a team that settles for a lot of solo home runs. I don't want to need three singles (combined with walks) to score a measly run. I want crooked numbers, which usually comes from hitting with some power and with runners on. Actually Toronto led the league both in getting guys on base and in slugging percentage, so I guess it's not either/or. I want us to be 2015 Toronto. We don't resemble them now, and I'm not sure we get there in three years either. But there's more of a chance of that than becoming KC.
  2. ashbury
    I believe Park played some third base for his Korean team, in addition to first, so it's not like he's born to DH. I imagine Ryan wants to keep the pressure off him, but given the realities it's an option I would consider too.
  3. ashbury
    Mod note: Let's not make it about other posters, especially when it's not even relevant.
  4. ashbury
    In the Tahoe region where I lived for a long while, I was surprised at the relatively numerous MN car license plates relative to surrounding states with similar populations (WI, IA) and even Illinois.
  5. ashbury
    Giants. I lived briefly in the area twice, plus another stint just up the road on I-80. And they annoy my SoCal relatives who root for the Dodgers, another plus.
  6. ashbury
  7. ashbury
    Sorry but this sounds a lot like when my wife tells me, "it's up to you," and then later can say she didn't tell me what to do.
  8. ashbury
    Well-called.
  9. ashbury
    Yes, and if AA outfielder Tyler Goeddel is likely the first pick (by Philly), then it seems like Michael could be on some team's radar too.
  10. ashbury
    If you're going to define "baseball" one certain way, there isn't anything to discuss. Kinda dull. And since your definition is at odds with how general managers define it, it's not a realistic discussion either.
  11. ashbury
    Badge of honor.
  12. ashbury
    Uh, no. Something else he and CarGo share.
  13. ashbury
    Based on his 2015 home/road splits, about like Trevor Plouffe?
  14. ashbury
    That observation should make any infielder hang his head in shame.
  15. ashbury
    Or, long-term/strategic versus short-term/tactical baseball judgement.
  16. ashbury
    I was kind of pulling for him to get a better major league shot with some other organization. Pegged as second base-only, these past few years, it seems unlikely the Twins will give him a shot as a utility guy, and he's blocked by at least Dozier and probably Polanco at second.
  17. ashbury
    The reason is Greinke. They now have a self-defined window (probably fewer than the 6 years of that contract). He decides to sign with someone else, AZ doesn't make this trade.
  18. ashbury
    Dis-concur. That is all.
  19. ashbury
    So they're in effect willing to pay $28M a year for a couple of those good good Ben Zobrist seasons?
  20. ashbury
    This was the item that somehow I wasn't factoring in. The money's freed up to be redeployed some other way. Maybe not quite as favorably as retaining a player good enough to WANT to opt out. But it mitigates the loss, in the upside case. I'm still pretty meh about acquiring Shields for Nolasco, because his 2015 represents new information that wasn't available when his contract was signed a year earlier. The odds of the contract turning out to approach its worst case can't be the same as back then, yet the cost that factors in those risks hasn't changed. I just want the pain to end, not be extended by a year and to a higher degree, so that colors my approach to computing an expectation value or whatever. My thinking also might be different if I believed the team would be willing to eat the last two years of an untradable $21M/yr contract, were the gamble to fail and that was the way such a trade played out. The fact they haven't already jettisoned Nolasco speaks to that. But it's not April yet and maybe a poor spring really will mean cutting ties with Ricky. Which would mean they didn't make this highly hypothetical trade for Shields, but now this is getting pretty darn circular.
  21. ashbury
    I don't think their methodology claims to be able to separate the cases of "bounceback candidate" and "about to fall off the side of a cliff" for individual players past 30.* It just seems to split the difference of recent seasons, with a small aging factor added. Which may be wise, but doesn't really count as independent data on the subject. * Nor do I.
  22. ashbury
    http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/i-want-to-believe-20100818-163229.jpg /obligatory
  23. ashbury
    I just hadn't remembered the details of Shields's contract. The opt-out changes the calculation of risk and reward, beyond the standard "will he bounce back or not" dilemma. It's also true that he could have a "good" 2016 but not one that would lead him to opt out. Then good seasons the following two or even three years would be a lot of value. Given that contracts for starting pitching aren't going down, you'd have to kind of thread the needle to get the level of goodness without it being "too" good. In sum, there's a significant cap on the size of the upside in getting Shields due to the opt-out, and coupled with the cost (both aggregate and per-year) being higher than Nolasco, I'm thinking the expectation value comes out pretty close to a wash.
  24. ashbury
    It's not the worst case. It's the best case. And you are shouldering the risk of up to 3 bad years at an even higher price than Nolasco, to gain it.
  25. ashbury
    Yeah, but the only way Shields opts out is if he has a very good year, good enough to create hopes for an offer greater than $21M a year. And in that case you don't want him to opt out. So that puts a serious cap on the upside a Nolasco for Shields deal would offer: you aren't trading for 3 good years of Shields, you are trading for (the chance at) 1. Seems to me you'd be trading mostly for the downside risk Shields carries. Sounds like 3-1 odds even if the chance of a bounceback season is 50-50.
×
×
  • Create New...