Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41,368

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    465

 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 ashbury

  1. ashbury
    I'm confused. Which "previous regime" are you referring to in this? Falvey's, with Zoll representing the new regime? Or Terry Ryan, prior to Falvey?
  2. ashbury
    An interesting thought-experiment would be to consider how the Blue Jays front office would think if they were in the TC market and the owners were named Pohlad.
  3. ashbury
    I started to edit the above, but feared someone would reply to the first version before I could finish. It's not very good, and here is what my evolving opinion looks like at this moment: That is a fair "other side of the coin". They extended Byron Buxton during the off-season after the Berrios trade. Does that mean it was "one or the other, not both?" for their home-grown stars? Ugh. Other than Buxton, it seems to me they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.
  4. ashbury
    That is a fair "other side of the coin". Wake me when the Twins spend that $131M through 2028 on players of higher caliber than Josh Bell and Victor Caratini that they wouldn't have otherwise had. Seems to me 1) they won't reach $131M, and 2) they piddle away what they DO spend, $5-7M at a time on players who can not possibly be difference-makers, just place-holders due to some present exigency.
  5. ashbury
    I just explained why that is simply not true. You have to think like a front office.
  6. ashbury
    I disagree. You overlook the value of incumbency. Good players frequently sign extensions with their current team. "We like your client. We hope he likes playing for us. Here is a market-correct offer for X years, covering his last year of arbitration plus X-1 years. It's possible he could squeeze out an additional $X million by going through free agency, but our offer removes all the risk involved in going that route. Please give your client our warmest regards, and let us know what you and he decide." Paying market rates for players is more expensive than paying for young talent. But there is a value in "we have him, and you don't," for players like Berrios who belong, at worst, in mid-rotation for a championship-caliber club and possibly #2 or even #1 in specific cases. No team wins awards for the most efficient use of budget space - you use the budget space you have (or are comfortable with) to amass talent. The Twins obviously were not going to make an offer Berrios was willing to accept at that time - that was clear from every report seen in the press. So trading him for high-value prospects made sense for them. But the Jays were operating on a different plane and such a trade made sense for them in a different way. They traded prospects for 1.33 years of current control plus the chance for more. It turns out $131M was the Jays' commitment. If seems entirely plausible the Twins found such a number way too rich for their blood. The trade made sense from both sides, and with a chance for a time-window much longer than the nominal 1.33 years of remaining control. And I think it's entirely fair to count all of the WAR he's given the Jays. It kills me that the Twins can't commit $131M to one of their home-grown stars.
  7. ashbury
    PREDICTION Go big or go home when making bold predictions.
  8. ashbury
    I believe the panel would also have accepted a Dennis Green gif.
  9. ashbury
    This is why MLB keeps the stats for us, so we don't have to rely on small samples and personal recollection. I'm of the opinion that there is a negative trend for the Twins like people suggest. But all baseball data is "noisy" and there will be outliers in either direction. So it's hard to make the case because the trend line won't be absolute. Even with good, accurate, complete data, it's still hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when looking for something.
  10. ashbury
    Feels like an article written two series ago, with W-L records updated while it waited in the queue for publication.
  11. ashbury
    I don't have any more inside-information than anyone else here. When faced with an inexplicable decision, I tend to assume there is information I am missing, rather than complete stupidity. So my answer is "I don't know" but here are the nuances. 1) Granting a request for a release seems extremely unlikely. Terrible precedent to set. "Wait, you mean I could just ask out, like that one guy last year, Sam, Simon Whats-his-name, did?" 2) I wouldn't even want to speculate what kind of off field issue could have happened. 3) Might a trade be in the works? The DFA was announced on a Saturday. Maybe the trade partner doesn't like to conduct business on a weekend, or maybe there are league rules I'm unaware of. This possibility will play out early tomorrow if it is the case. 4) Maybe there won't be another shoe dropped publicly and we'll never know. I'll continue to believe there's more to the story that neither party wants to divulge.
  12. ashbury
    Has to be more to it than that. This franchise has always been about stewardship of resources, and exposing a player needlessly to waivers goes against their very grain. Outman remaining on the 26-man roster is exactly such an example, and he's a much less-valuable case. I'm expecting some other shoe to drop shortly regarding SWR.
  13. ashbury
    Headline: "Red-Hot Pirates." The Pirates were on a 5-8 run when the Twins came to town. There's every chance that our Twins are going to be a Get Well card for a bunch more teams this season.
  14. ashbury
    Now do it in the first inning when the game is still in doubt.
  15. ashbury
    I think the implication was the Twins would almost have to make a market-correct offer to the two players.
  16. ashbury
  17. ashbury
    Getcha scorecard right cheer! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard! A St Paul Saints scorecard, I mean.
  18. ashbury
    I'm willing to try almost anyone as 5th man in the rotation, but a pitcher with that last name would be a bad omen.
  19. ashbury
    They clearly weren't going to run with 19 pitchers. As you say, the norm has become 21 or 22, so it won't be a surprise if they add 1 or 2 more. But it's that size to accommodate the 15-day IL guys that they don't want to 60-day to clear room. Position players get injured too, but you can play a substitute every day for a while if you have to - not so with the bullpen.
  20. ashbury
    I mean, um, yes.
  21. ashbury
    I think that's very true. Fans deserve to believe that the competition they watch on the field is legitimate. They do not want to be told, 1) "gamblers got their hooks into the players," 2) "some of the players were on performance enhancing drugs." If the casual fan goes to the game without prior knowledge, and then finds out that the team that won 15-4 was actually paid 5x more, it's a bummer.
  22. ashbury
    That could be taken two ways. Do you mean you know the answer, or that the answer is Yes?
  23. ashbury
    ?? Right now they have 19 by my count. Until they removed SWR, Garcia, and Topa I think they had 22. They've lacked talent all season but not numbers. The numbers do not count guys on the 60-day IL, but do include the ones on the 15-day. That could be the source of the disconnect.
  24. ashbury
    The headline stated "X or Y" and we all know the answer to that.
  25. ashbury
    Many of which will make the franchise poison to future free agents and draft picks.
×
×
  • Create New...