Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    40,838

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    462

 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 ashbury

  1. ashbury
    It's better than a two-year contract, as well. Even a positive is taken as evidence for the opposite. Not that I disagree, of course. Cruz would be acceptable as the second-best signing of the off-season.
  2. ashbury
    Nelson Cruz is under control for two years. That's a start.
  3. ashbury
    I'd be interested to know the methodology of such studies. For instance if the same conclusion applies to high-school draftees, college draftees, and international signings. Also, how to separate talent from promotion speed - since a guy brought up to the majors at age 21 might be, you know, just really good in the first place - that seems the hard part, to me.
  4. ashbury
    I don't buy this. If you wait too long, he could wind up having a Hall of Fame career before you even get a chance to offer him the benefit of your wisdom.
  5. ashbury
    I hope they don't replace Robbie Grossman at all. Robbie had no useful role on the team.
  6. ashbury
    A big-time catcher is a rich team's luxury. Acquiring one consumes resources that could have been applied to someone who plays 150+ games a year or starts 32.
  7. ashbury
    Because the contract would be two years shorter and if he's still productive then that part of the contract is less risky than the entire one now. But that's the flaw in the other poster's argument. what if the first two years are when something bad happens. We may believe that risk is small, due to factors such as his current age. But it's not zero. If some other team can get the Twins to shoulder the risk now, and then take him off their hands when that initial risk has played out without harm, then it's a win for that other team versus just signing him to the same contract in the first place. Balancing that would be whatever benefit the Twins get from those two years. And, IF the front office believes that these next two years aren't likely to be competitive anyway, then the deal becomes Heads I Lose, Tails You Win - or maybe breakeven at best. I wouldn't go into a contract with a high end talent with that kind of scenario planning as the primary motivation. Do it for the purpose of making your team better now and for several seasons to come.
  8. ashbury
    If an opinion's misguided on a par with denying the color of the sky, a good rebuttal should be easy to write. Consider doing that, instead of implying that people ought to keep their thoughts to themselves. If the disagreement is more nuanced, then a good rebuttal is even more worth writing, as it may contribute to a worthwhile discussion. PS: the sky outside my window is currently rather gray, in contrast to the "blue" I keep reading about. Moderator's note: OK, I guess I've talked myself into realizing that what I'm really asking is to not threadjack this article with a tangent about positivity, negativity, sarcasm...
  9. ashbury
    Rodney was around for most of the season. Trevor's ERA was 4.50 when Rodney got traded; he had had 3 consecutive bad games, so apparently Rodney wan't able to nip that in the bud while he was still there. Teams have coaches, for the purposes you described. Veteran leadership on the roster is useful but a bit overrated.
  10. ashbury
    Corporate-speak like he engaged in suggests to me that he can't say what he's actually thinking.
  11. ashbury
    Of all the ways I anticipated this sentence being completed - such as "make a run at winning the division" - a reference to "flexibility moving forward" didn't rank very high. I'm not asking him to make a brash prediction that he'll be hung for later. But with all the qualifiers he stated... this is deflating. I'm not interested in the front office's flexibility. He's not the star of the show. I watch the games in hopes of competitive baseball. He begins his reply with a focus on "this... group" of players but then pivots back to the FO. If he's not willing to characterize the year as rebuilding, but his aspirations aren't on winning... then, uh, what? "Sights set on Cleveland" as an afterthought later on didn't do it for me. He's not very inspiring. "Twins Baseball: come for the young prospects, stay for the flexibility moving forward!"
  12. ashbury
    Not sure I follow. There's usually 3 other PA for him in the game. When the results of those look good enough over a period of time, decrease the bunting if that seems right. Meanwhile, embrace the likely .350+ OBP on the bunt attempts if he gets truly good at it (the discussion is moot if he can't), and enjoy the cautiously drawn-in infield when he swings away. Also, bunting can be a fluid tactical choice within a given PA. I don't see how his psyche is scarred for life, by playing to one of his strengths. That's why you have coaches, to keep guys focused. Unwritten rules, and implications that someone isn't being manly enough, are for the birds - the other team wants you to limit your own options, if you buy into their bantering rhetoric. I don't think anyone is advocating bunting in situations when the baserunner situation isn't favorable. And I was kidding the other day when I suggested gunning for DiMaggio's hitting streak by bunting exclusively, BTW.
  13. ashbury
    There is this button labeled MultiQuote. You should give it a spin.
  14. ashbury
    Maybe it could have been a larger sample size if he had done better. / No I don't really have a point.
  15. ashbury
    Could he break DiMaggio's record if he bunted frequently, game after game after game?
  16. ashbury
  17. ashbury
    If injuries have accounted for flailing at breaking pitches in the dirt, then I'm with you. Personally I think they are two separate provisos involved with our being happy with him.
  18. ashbury
    The nickname is a fish. Miami has one too, the Marlins. What's "horrible"?
  19. ashbury
    The book is still open on Polanco, but at the moment he is a good example of why I say you should take age into account when evaluating minor league stats. On average, players gain skills year by year, and they move up to harder leagues that tax those skills. Simply adding up stats doesn't tell you enough, and stats that seemingly stagnate from year to year may hide a lot of growth. It's an inexact art and others surely do it better, but I rate each minor league level as .100 OPS harder than the one below it, and I estimate .100 OPS improvement each year for a player, until around age 24. Players can have a bad year and I throw it out if that's what it looks like - they can have an outlier "career year" and I do likewise - fluctuation occurs, and progress is not steady, and injuries occur, and good luck happens. Getting called up early can mess with the player's mind and his progression. But all in all, Polanco's age 19-21 seasons at A, high-A and AA, told me to keep an eye on him. Max Kepler looked like he'd reach the majors, by the same general method. I had higher hopes for Eduardo Escobar when he was obtained, than some, same way. But the same methodology had me keeping tabs on Max Murphy and Travis Harrison too. *shrug* Anyway, don't look at AA stats for a 21-year old the same way you would for 23, is my suggestion.
  20. ashbury
    I think by 54 we all start to feel the wisdom of not legging out every routine grounder.
  21. ashbury
    If he is fine, he will play 150+ games. I think that's the way to look at it.
  22. ashbury
    Yachta not make puns like those, canoe stop?
  23. ashbury
    I think it's safe to say literally 100% of the people empowered to vote on the question disagree with your position. That's rare for any position, on any topic.
  24. ashbury
    I'll condense your post to this sentence for the purpose of my reply. I'm reminded of a letter supposedly sent to Dear Abby long ago. It went along the lines of "Dear Abby, my husband has left me. I'm 46 years old, with no job experience, and I'm thinking of going back to school and getting the college degree that I never tried for when I got married at 18. Everyone tells me I can do the work necessary to succeed in college. But, Abby, I'd be 50 when I graduated! Should I do this?" And Abby (is said to have) replied, "And how old will you be in 4 years if you DON'T go to college?" I'd love to have a good playoff run, but that's not the sole criterion. I want good baseball. I'm not of the "all in for the WS, or else tank" philosophy (and that might be where the disconnect is, relative to some posters). Any pool of baseball assets is inherently a depreciating one, so you must replenish via all avenues, continually. Acquire talent that other teams covet, instead of concentrating on filler. Sometimes this requires money. If it doesn't work out due to circumstances such as the young cheap guys not panning out as hoped, or even if the acquired FA talents fizzle, then deal with it then. (If every asset fails, go back and figure out what's wrong with the system.) "But we might not have a good season if we acquire McCutchen [or whoever] and then Buxton/Sano fail?" "And how good a season will we have if Buxton/Sano fail, without McCutchen?"
  25. ashbury
    I'm not advocating for going to extremes, such as signing players to lengthy contracts that will hamstring the team for years as future events unfold. But acquiring talent when you're not sure of what you've got, and then dealing with the happy circumstance of too much talent, was still possible this off-season. McCutchen signed for 3 years. That contract wouldn't be an albatross, and would be preferable to what they are paying Cron in my estimation. Aiming higher with the pitchers they signed would be another avenue toward bolstering talent during uncertainty - relievers are generally always fungible if you find yourself overstocked. Uncertainty is a fact of life for any team. That doesn't mean marking time. Damage caused by taking action is often easy to spot and then critique. Failing to shore things up and perform maintenance is less obviously costly, and is also generally underrated. This and the next several seasons for the Twins are an era of young cheap talent produced by the farm system, albeit talent of as yet uncertain quality, and the thing to do is apply unused financial resources during this period in case the young talent flops. What exactly are we saving the money for?
×
×
  • Create New...