Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,473

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by ashbury

  1. ashbury
    Each Caretaker probably has their own reasons and reasoning, but I personally pony up because I believe in the site's mission. Examining the Return on Investment in terms of caretaker articles is to me a bit like donating to NPR for the sweet, sweet tote bag they will send me as a thank-you gift.
  2. ashbury
    As I mentioned in that Staumont article, I fired off a comment after reading only the teaser, not even realizing there was more content. I come to almost all content via the site's Unread Content tool, which means everything is treated as being in a "Forum", so I don't see official articles in their "native" environment. And every article, whether Caretaker or not, has "View full article" at the bottom, so I have trained myself to not even notice that as a cue there might be more (because with regular articles, there isn't). Previously the site irritated non-paying readers with too much of an indicator every time that they were missing out on the good part of the content. That's been fixed perhaps, but there's an equal and opposite problem. I don't have a solution to propose. But I admire the conundrum.
  3. ashbury
    Ha, and sometimes Caretakers fail to even notice until after commenting that there is a lot more content to be had by clicking on "View full article" when they come in via the Unread Content page.
  4. ashbury
    I'm probably more lamenting the situation about the 40-man which you spelled out. I forget if it's been mentioned but Staumont does appear to have a minor league option remaining. If he's not on the injured list but isn't performing, at least he can be sent to St Paul without waivers, if that's what they want. Someone clogging the 26-man is just as much a factor as the 40, but he isn't that.
  5. ashbury
    Staumont had a successful 2020-2021, built on a BABIP of .261 across the two years. When that ability to make batters hit the ball right at fielders went away, so did his success. Oh, and in fairness there was that unpleasantness about neck soreness and thoracic outlet, too. This signing is portrayed as low-risk high-reward, and I don't really see the latter, just "a guy." And the risk is from taking up one of the team's 40-man spots. Apparently they see no better use for that scarce resource at this time. Even lowly KC had a better use for a spot on theirs. There are only 1200 spots in the majors, and somehow Josh Staumont has one, rather than a minor league commitment.
  6. ashbury
    The genius part of this signing is that when they DFA him and put him on waivers, no other team will claim him because he's making more than major league minimum* and they can stash him at AAA to make room for the next waiver-wire pickup! Genius, I tell you. * By a few hundred thousand dollars.
  7. ashbury
    You used an exclamation point, so I guess the adrenaline is pumping a little.
  8. ashbury
  9. ashbury
    What happens to the GM at the other team who makes the mistake of trading for Buxton?
  10. ashbury
    You brought up the status, so accept the correction gracefully. Or not, but then accept the pushback. Your choice. First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
  11. ashbury
    You can write whatever book you want, but he is ineligible for the Rookie of the Year award going forward, so using a word differently than MLB does is begging for misunderstanding.
  12. ashbury
    Not to mention, it would be difficult to attract top talent, given that the player might be playing second fiddle in one way or another.
  13. ashbury
    Varland needs to go to St Paul as a starter and demonstrate he can dominate AAA hitters, and that he is ready to compete against the major leaguers, better than he did in 2023. This in turn means acquiring someone else who already projects to do better than 2023 Varland. I'm not down on Varland, but it's an assumption that he will still improve, and 2023 wasn't championship caliber yet.
  14. ashbury
    Good catch. I took my totals from fielding starts listed on b-r.com, but that overlooks games DHing.
  15. ashbury
    No Twin player has started 140 games since Paul Molitor was manager. Expectations for raw/counting totals should be kept in check. "Full season" doesn't mean what it used to. / edit - thanks to the correction below, I should note that this pertains to starts at a position. DH starts raise the number to 150. I think my point remains that 150 is a stretch for any Twins player, especially one who had trouble staying on the field in 2023 even after coming off the 60-day IL for his knee surgery.
  16. ashbury
    Baseball in general brings this on itself. It's thought that good debate enlivens the fan base, but all it really does is give a narrative to the best players that "he wasn't that good." The NFL doesn't make nearly as big a fetish out of debate, and simply celebrates its best by having a "large hall". Much better marketing, and is just another (small) way that football overtook baseball.
  17. ashbury
    Here's why I lump the 5 together, and it's stated near the opening of this article: Not one of these gentlemen pitched one inning in the majors in the season that followed their signing with the Twins. That's a pretty impressive streak of millions spent on pitchers who had nothing left in the tank. No need for further elaboration or analysis.
  18. ashbury
    Congratulations on satirically identifying a flaw in human communications (internet or not): sharply defining fuzzy definitions. (Equally effective in grinding useful discussion to a halt is fuzzying up sharp definitions.) Aside from that, "Success for Byron Buxton" has at least two meanings. Contributing to team success is one, but living up to the potential most of us once believed in is another. WAR and its relative Win Above Average do well for setting a threshold of the former - if he's an above average player by WAA then he can be a success even if his WAR is lowish due to time away for injury. And he needs to time his health for productivity in a possible playoff run, But for his legacy, I hope for him to exceed the 131 games he started in CF as a 23-year old, combined with excellent batting stats. I'm not sure that is plausible for 2024 but would be a hallmark of success to me.
  19. ashbury
    My daughter is expecting and she says she's delaying the required blood glucose test until well after the holidays. Now that's putting the baby's needs first! (She's doing wonderfully, actually.)
  20. ashbury
    I was considering formulating a reply but you already expressed the gist of it. MLR treats revenue as the independent variable. I treat revenue as not just a dependent variable, but one that is as good a metric for success as there is. Vying for a World Series win is a zero-sum game, but every franchise increasing its revenue is possible in principle and would reflect better health for the sport overall. I would be open to learning of counter-examples where a team can increase revenue over, say, a 10-year period and somehow harm the franchise. With two exceptions (Oakland and Baltimore) I don't believe that one franchise increasing its long-term revenue harms another franchise, either. Fans in the seats, as you put it, isn't revenue, but it's a pretty good proxy. I want to see every team drawing 3 million. I don't have enough market research available to assert whether the Rays' approach (ditto the Athletics and some others) to trading away good players when they become expensive is a death spiral for fan interest. That's my guess though.
  21. ashbury
    Young, yes, but he's had 3 stints on the IL in the past two years. One, calf contusion, may have been an on-field injury and unavoidable (didn't take the time to research), but the other two look like started out as minor issues that lingered - the toe this season wound up needing surgery. I kind of like the (relatively) wiry guys for durability like Berrios and PLopez - yeah Pablo is listed as 6'4" but he looks trim. Big guys who don't strike out many? Not so much.
  22. ashbury
    I'm on an eating strike. I am binging on Christmas treats, and won't stop until, well, I feel like it. And when my doctor scolds me in January, I will blame the Twins.
  23. ashbury
    Happy now?
  24. ashbury
    "The Band's Getting Back Together" has never interested me much for my baseball team. "You can't go home again" is more like it. Mitch Garver is not the player we had half a decade ago. He's not a fit now.
  25. ashbury
    I'm unwilling to rank trades. Remember the quote from Tolstoy's lesser known sequel, Anna Karenina: The Baseball Chronicles? All happy trades are alike; each unhappy trade is unhappy in its own way. How to compare Tommy Herr, John Ryan Murphy, Paul Harzell, Carlos Gomez, Scott Klingenbeck, Jim Hoey, Matt Capps, Delmon Young, Jorge Lopez, and Tyler Mahle? Don't.
×
×
  • Create New...