Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41,454

  • 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
    Apparently the house analysts have a sense of humor.
  2. ashbury
    Leading by a run or two in the ninth, a guy on second and you're behind in the count, and you know TORK is on deck? Could be intimidating. Post-game reaction, "uffda, he TORQUED that hanger."
  3. ashbury
    Howard, probably? And he's exactly the guy I won't try to guess about, if he's available. If you pick him, you have to sign him, and that's a pretty big gamble, given the two draft picks we're already missing.
  4. ashbury
    My prediction is that the Twins first round pick will be someone they are shocked, shocked fell to them. Hope it's a good collitch pitcher. If there's a run on that category in the earlier picks, then an up-the-middle talent should be fungible. The pool of dollars that can be applied is too complex and depends on information unknowable to me, so I don't have a guess as to whether they might try something bold.
  5. ashbury
    Oelkers stings the most. Once you are past the first few picks, every player has been passed on by many front offices, so it's cherry picking or 20/20 hindsight to critique. As high as Oelkers was chosen, you have to assume Gooden was on the short list too, and they guessed wrong; if not, then that would be even worse. Of course any individual pick could just be bad luck. Prediction is hard, especially where it concerns the future.
  6. ashbury
    Like it or not, the people who make it to the ranks of sports-team ownership did not do it by adopting a financial strategy of accepting short term losses in the name of a larger long term gain. Show a profit every quarter (if you're publicly traded), and let the future take care of itself. If a loss looms, minimize it. If no games are played, the owners will collectively lose $X million. It flies in the face of their accumulated logic to lose even 1 more dollar than that, by paying the players to play the games. Sad but true.
  7. ashbury
    This sort of outcome occurs for #6 overall every 2 or 3 drafts. For each Barry Bonds or Gary Sheffield, you have a Paul Coleman or Geoff Girdley who never even reaches the Show, or a Jeremy Sowers or Seth Greisinger who has a few moments but makes no real impact. https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=6&draft_type=junreg&query_type=overall_pick&from_type_jc=0&from_type_hs=0&from_type_4y=0&from_type_unk=0
  8. ashbury
    As expected.
  9. ashbury
    "David Petersen couldn't properly call a strike if his life depended on it." -- Enrico Pallazzo, Major League umpire
  10. ashbury
    I guess the idea, by the end of the series, is to look at what kind of (future) team has been assembled, moreso than the trade value of the components?
  11. ashbury
    Baseball-reference.com has a draft history with filters that can be applied. Here it is when you choose #27 overall. Twins in this slice of history are Carlos Gutierrez and Scott Stahoviak. Not auspicious.
  12. ashbury
    I've been off the Nick Gordon bandwagon for a while now. Still, it's not impossible that he winds up being a very competent major league middle-infielder (probably 2B), and at fourth round he seems like less of a reach than if picked earlier. This in turn means that Steve Lein got a couple of pitchers and a very good bat, so at the moment I think I give the nod to him.
  13. ashbury
    Was sort of wondering whether you were just checking if we were reading carefully.
  14. ashbury
    How about Pete Harnisch? I thought he was picked higher, but apparently not. He carved out a pretty good career, and in comparison to a reliever who really was never dominant I'd put him at #3.
  15. ashbury
    Clete epitomized Twins misery. Full stop.
  16. ashbury
    So you agree with the post that kicked off this whole discussion. Nick Nelson said it plainly, "If Kepler wants to stand on the sidelines, defining himself simply as a ballplayer while rejecting any personal stake in the situation, that is his prerogative." I don't really see a purpose in going around in circles like this.
  17. ashbury
    Ah, so you are taking it personally. The corruption of the system is reflected in the comfortable ignorance of people like me, and probably you, while a small proportion of law enforcement does the dirty work.
  18. ashbury
    Now you're just being silly. I stand by my statement. Horrible outcomes don't necessarily happen because of some nefarious top-down plan. They easily come from the bottom-up, when the higher-ups don't show a little backbone, and/or the upper echelons contain a few of the lowlifes that were described in the post I responded to.
  19. ashbury
    That is, as Brock said, your "privilege."
  20. ashbury
    Isn't the latter a good working description of how the former is implemented?
  21. ashbury
    Boo! (No, I liked it.)
  22. ashbury
    Could have worked out, if others on the team hit like you'd expect. Nossek could have been the hero, of sorts. The Dodgers held their entire league to a .224 BA that year. You might expect the pennant winner from the other league to exceed that by a little, but instead the Twins hit a buck ninety-five. All the analytics in the world won't help you when all but two starting position players underperform.
  23. ashbury
    Caucus is the people (noun), black is the descriptor (adjective). I'm not suggesting it's a hard and fast rule that will never have an exception. But the example you asked about, fits. "The Blacks in Congress" would be jarring in a way that "the Black Caucus" somehow isn't. But, again I have to say, depending on which decade you were living in, the implication of using Black as a noun has varied greatly. At a certain point, I believe it was a preferred usage. Someone growing up at a certain time could have gotten habits ingrained. Regional usage may also have varied at any given time.
  24. ashbury
    In that case you would miss out on one of my favorite old jokes involving an English teacher turned cab driver in Boston being asked where's the best place in town to get "scrod". I'll take your question at face value. A noun got drilled into me as a "person, place, thing, or idea". I'm sure there are exceptions. Adjectives on the other hand are words that describe nouns. I'm 6 foot 1, which sometimes gets me described as tall, though certainly nothing out of the ordinary. If someone lumped me in with others and referred to us as the "talls", well, we haven't been subjected to much prejudice so I would be confused more than insulted, but I would wonder why they didn't just say "tall people". It's like that - somehow using the describing word as a substitute for the people themselves makes a person go "hmmmm". I will say, though, that what's OK and what's not OK terminology for black folks has made multiple shifts in my time on earth. So I run afoul at times. I probably wouldn't have said what Brock said - but when he said it, I felt I understood.
  25. ashbury
    Adjective versus noun. Language is subtle, but "a black" in 2020 sounds demeaning as a noun. The tipoff in this case: typically in English one doesn't pluralize adjectives.
×
×
  • Create New...