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
    Whether his view is insightful or not, I don't think it was a very smart line of discussion to take in a public way, on various levels. Throwing anyone under the bus seems to violate Public Relations 101. Don't name names. Don't use terms like mercenary. Don't burn bridges. Just say roster construction is not an exact science, and move on. I know our GM is considered a whiz kid but he's 47 - I expected better sense than that. And it's not even a useful angle, because 1-year/expiring contracts are a necessary part of most plans anyway; the 2018 Red Sox had a few and it didn't visibly hurt them - and as you pointed out, we just acquired one.
  2. ashbury
    Thad Levine had an extended interview with Aaron Gleeman. Probably what you're seeing is in reference to quotations like these excerpts: No GM is going to spell things out regarding clubhouse chemistry, particularly as pertains to individuals, but these words come as close as possible to laying it out.
  3. ashbury
    I'll take a crack at that last one. The game is over when you make your 27th out as a team (24 if you're winning, other numbers in certain cases). So, not making an out at your turn can be thought of as the single most important skill in the game. OBP is basically the mirror image of making outs.
  4. ashbury
    True. But worst-case is not why you build a roster.
  5. ashbury
    "Compete" is one of those fuzzy terms. It looks to me that the FO isn't planning on tanking, nor risking tanking by committing to kids who aren't ready. I didn't wordsmith much there, but on re-reading I see hedged phrases like "very competitive", "serious contention", and "rolls of the dice" in what I said. That serves to somewhat define the muddled middle ground I view the FO as occupying this off-season.
  6. ashbury
    I saw all I care to see of Gordon in one game in Pawtucket. Let him prove his glove and bat, both, at AAA before handing him anything.
  7. ashbury
    That doesn't seem plausible. It seems to me instead that their plan for the future doesn't involve being very competitive in 2019. That disappoints me greatly, as I was hoping to take a step forward toward serious contention this coming year while not mortgaging the future. The rebuild (never termed as such by the team) began in earnest after the 2012 season; it's been a long time, with 2017 being mostly a dead-cat bounce. As I stated probably a month ago, I was one of those who wouldn't be filing an off-season plan - the reason being that I could not construct one that I was confident in moving the needle for 2019. But I was hoping our front office, armed with better analytics than the back-of-the-envelope ones I can muster, would see a way. Apparently they reached the same conclusion I did. To repeat, disappointing. Schoop's an OK signing. The "plan" for contention in 2019 seems to be that several rolls of the dice might coincide.
  8. ashbury
    We now have 19 batters and only 21 pitchers on the roster. I found it so strange the past year or two running with 24 or 25 arms and barely enough bats for just the 25-man roster.
  9. ashbury
    Said... no baseball player... ever.
  10. ashbury
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat incarnation after incarnation of St Paul Saints. -- Ervin Santayana
  11. ashbury
    From 1894-1899, Charles Comiskey's team WAS the St. Paul Saints. He moved them to Chicago in 1900.
  12. ashbury
    If you're going to use analytics such as defensive measures, then I guess I would take issue with calling him a replacement level player, another analytics term. He's above that, but below average, earning a below-average salary. If he were replacement level, they would, you know, replace him, with someone earning MLB minimum instead of above that. As you go on to note, there is a place in the majors for someone "blah" like that. Grossman by contrast was in a similar boat performance-wise but at an even higher price point around MLB average, and out he goes.
  13. ashbury
    Willians Astudillo can provide some intel depth as well.
  14. ashbury
    I was trying to correct the record on what was said. Not what they should have said.
  15. ashbury
    I thought the promise was that they could sign their good homegrown players when those players became eligible to leave.
  16. ashbury
    I'm glad that our FO isn't choosing Tyler Austin as the hill they want to die on, but that Lance Lynn signing is looking worse by the month. Austin plus a low-minors fifth-starter type pitcher is looking like merely salary relief for the remainder of Lynn's 2018 salary, and since payroll savings don't carry over to future seasons there's no net benefit except two dispensable players.
  17. ashbury
    No. And anyway I know how.
  18. ashbury
    Moderator's Note: While I doubt it's your intent, let's (all collectively) not turn this into another "PEDs: Pro Or Con" thread, nor draw lines putting every poster in either one camp or the other. Cano was suspended for violating the league's drug policy*, and that may or may not be a factor in whether one would wish to acquire him. But let's not expand it beyond Cano. * As a point of information, he was suspended for use of a diuretic that is banned because it can mask PED use. He denied PED use, admitting only to the banned diuretic which he ascribed to a misunderstanding. OTOH people in the industry have been quoted as lacking in surprise he ran afoul of the rules.
  19. ashbury
    He's an above average offensive player and he plays well at an up the middle position on defense. Regardless of talent, how can someone be lazy and do that? The PED suspension gives one pause. But PEDs do little unless the athlete is willing to work hard. Using PEDs could indicate a certain degree of caring, albeit misguided, rather than non-caring. As for his own interests, those coincide with his team's interests where it comes to results - what other interests are you implying? What harm to the team are you implying? Age, and length/magnitude of remaining contract, are the big negatives. Innuendo is not needed.
  20. ashbury
    Perhaps not. But Tom stated, "That's not a team weakness right now," and I was responding to a response to that.
  21. ashbury
    I worked hard to achieve that. So, yes, about hobgoblins.
  22. ashbury
    22nd in the majors means around middle of the pack in the AL. Because of the DH, mostly. Always distrust MLB-wide rankings. Always.
  23. ashbury
    The White Sox got a good reliever. Season. Over. They gave up a pretty decent young catcher to get him, didn't they?
  24. ashbury
    You said that three years ago, too.
  25. ashbury
    It's probably the laser-beam focus on Kepler being positionally flexible that bothers me. If you feel comfortable saying "Cave or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" or "Rosario or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" now and then, I'll feel like the Positional Flexibility Club truly is inclusive. Cave is about the last guy I'd like to see locked to one position.
×
×
  • Create New...