Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,479

  • 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
    Your point isn't completely bad, but let's please keep this thread on the topic that the article laid out, namely the roster choices, and not go off onto a tangent about fellow posters. Also, keep in mind that the voices you are hearing are neither monolithic nor static. Me for instance: I've felt more critical of the moves this season than in years past, and I've been saying so. That doesn't make it "constant bashing". What's more, if I hold my tongue now, and then complain if they get off to a 10-25 start, then I'm being a front runner. Instead, I'm expressing my concerns, and if they're proved wrong I'll acknowledge that. This place is for good conversation. We shouldn't try to squelch it. If you or others feel the need to talk further about the attitudes of fellow posters, please start a new thread.
  2. ashbury
    I prefer sauerkraut on my brats. Oh, and don't call players names.
  3. ashbury
    Except for Nelson Cruz, this off-season has felt more like an expansion draft, 1962 New York Mets style. In effect we've picked up Elio Chacon for middle infield, washed up Gil Hodges at 1B, and Roger Craig for our rotation. Not bad players individually, but 40-120 caliber to supplement our core when all is said and done.
  4. ashbury
    Can't help wondering: Dave St. Peter is OK with this?
  5. ashbury
    We don't know with certainty what becomes of unused payroll. It may get applied to different purposes within the organization to make it stronger. It may go to charity. What we do know with some certainty* is that it doesn't get banked to the next year's payroll, which does align with your main point. * No, I haven't invested further time locating an interview transcript from several years ago.
  6. ashbury
    $1.8M vs $3.2M? Haircut? That's a little off the sides, at most. A beard trim. A couple of wild eyebrow hairs plucked, maybe.
  7. ashbury
    I PMed Brock when I saw it before the copy of the article was placed in the Forums area. It's a Saturday, so that's probably why I haven't heard back. You should be able to view the article in the actual Article area of the site. Click on "Articles" near the top of any page, and then click on the article you want. Comments are linked between each article and its Forum counterpart. Kind of a computer kludge, to my way of thinking, but it works. To save you the arduous effort of finding the article, here is a direct link.
  8. ashbury
    You ask a fair question, and a quick bit of web-searching didn't turn up the particular interview I was thinking of. Such articles are sometimes hard to find if you don't remember the exact phrase that would identify it. I was hoping someone else might have spoken up with a link they found, but so far, no luck. Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the links I am thinking of. Until such a link is found, please amend my previous statement with "I believe" - since I still do.
  9. ashbury
    Minor point, but they moved to the front of the line to grab Curtiss when he was about to be put on waivers for demotion off the 40-man, by giving the Twins a low-minors shortstop.
  10. ashbury
    Although the team has repeatedly said they don't do this, let's explore the "should" aspect of it. Suppose they aim for $130M a year, but this year end up spending only $100M. Do they add $30M to the pot next year and spend $160M? They acquire a couple of expensive guys, and let's say they do well. What happens after that? Suppose the team as a whole does well with this expensive roster, makes the playoffs and even wins a round in the postseason before bowing out. Now the budget needs to go back down to $130M. Talented guys will be disposed of, in one form or another. What kind of PR will that be? I disagree with any excess money being pocketed, for a variety of reasons, but simply carrying over the money has its problems. I'd personally like to see un-used payroll headroom be applied to different ways of making the team strong, such as acquiring prospects. Unfortunately MLB has successively moved to limit the ability to do that, with hard caps on draft spending and likewise punitive policies on international signings past a certain threshold. It's nice to say money should carry over, but the devil's in the details.
  11. ashbury
  12. ashbury
    "The check is in the mail", "something something something", and "52% of revenue".
  13. ashbury
    Your assumption is where this goes wrong at the outset. Team officials have stated on multiple occasions that they do not do their payroll planning this way whatsoever.
  14. ashbury
    Yes, if 2018 Cody Allen is who he is going to be, going forward, nobody wants him. Pretty much any form of analysis will tell you to go with someone younger and with perhaps more upside. His full body of work suggests better, if he can bounce back.
  15. ashbury
    I respect Terry Ryan very much, but that quote came across as someone having trouble keeping up with the sharp increase in payrolls. He sounded like Grandpa at Thanksgiving dinner complaining about "prices these days". I think he felt he was making competitive offers, but they were actually just enough light to not be in the running. Just my guess, of course.
  16. ashbury
    And the Angels seem happy with Curtiss for Parker and Ozoria plus the money saved. I'm especially interested in knowing their views on why they see this as to their advantage. Not that they're going to say.
  17. ashbury
    The chances that the opposing starting pitcher is pretty good have to be higher when you slice and dice the data to look at games where the team is behind.
  18. ashbury
    I got it from Chief. He got it from his great-grandchildren. / actually, for anyone still mystified, it's an anglicized corruption of the French phrase "tout de suite", meaning right away. Wikipedia says it dates back to WWI. I thought it was better known. Guess not.
  19. ashbury
    I'm not sure what you think is "undefined", but here is a specific link, and it mentions a specific percentage (52). https://www.twincities.com/2008/03/01/in-the-family-carl-pohlads-son-says-there-are-no-plans-to-sell/ It dates to 10 years ago, but I've never seen it recanted.
  20. ashbury
  21. ashbury
    Good. And there is a solution for that, if you're the pitcher: go ahead and mow 'em down at the top of the order the third time you do face them. It just won't be in the order you originally envisioned. But with enough success they'll put you out there in the first inning eventually.
  22. ashbury
    Always a first time, honeybun.
  23. ashbury
    He's one of those players of whom opponents say, "he can beat you, even when he's not hitting." Which of course indirectly underscores how important the hit-tool is in our game most of the other times. He needs to figure out breaking-pitches-away, toot sweet.
  24. ashbury
    At catcher we have two guys coming off injuries that can have long-lasting consequences. In my thinking, either guy could come down with a recurrence, or a related malady, that suddenly leaves us short. Injuries are part of the game, and many are unforeseeable, but this situation seems higher risk than average. Who do we have stashed at AAA on a make-good contract, in case Willians suddenly is our starter and we have no backup?
  25. ashbury
    There actually is a Rule 6. But it's not a draft, it just explains what is done subsequently to drafting players via Rule 5.
×
×
  • Create New...