Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41,376

  • 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
    The speech he gave in Waseca was probably his undoing. Or was that the other guy I'm thinking of...
  2. ashbury
    That's my working theory also. Some small disagreement between Falvey and ownership escalated, lines were drawn in the sand, and next thing you know it's "You can't quit me, I fire!" That hypothesis will be discarded as soon as we learn further. 😁
  3. ashbury
    "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Strap in and buckle up, fans.
  4. ashbury
    I was hoping an actual Spanish speaker would explain, but absent that, I believe that because the letter 'J' is ordinarily aspirated* ('Juan') similar to an English 'H', then if someone wishes to name their child with the sound we are familiar with (sounding roughly like 'Dj' in some renderings), they include the 'h' after the 'J'. This is difficult to get across in writing and would be simpler face-to-face. But as an example, if you recall hearing our recently traded closer Jhoan Duran's name mentioned in broadcasts, it wasn't "Yo-hann" or similarly, it was more like "Joe-hann". That's what the 'h' does. Pereda's parents must have wanted his name pronounced about like Johnny is in English, so they included the 'h' so that people wouldn't guess and say "Yonny" or "Honny" or similar. I'm not 100% certain and if someone who knows wants to correct this explanation, I'd love to know. * I checked my understanding using ChatGPT and it tells me to say "voiceless velar fricative." I'm sure that will aid in everyone's understanding 😁
  5. ashbury
  6. ashbury
    Especially with his September BABIP at an astronomical .464. A return of that stat to his established norm close to .300 means that the month was likely a blip.
  7. ashbury
    Plenty more of them still in the pipeline.
  8. ashbury
    Welcome to the world of MLB economics, where player salaries are held artificially low for 6 seasons, give or take. Even with arbitration rights, Jeffers is drawing a salary lower than he could command from the highest bidder. So the salaries of the two players are apples-and-oranges. It's not nonsensical; it's regrettable that the team needed to do this. $7M isn't a princely sum for a major leaguer, but if the Twins are paying it for a backup player then it qualifies as the Failure Tax for not having developed another catcher the normal way who would draw a minimum salary. Jeffers is a win for the organization's drafting and development, but he's the only win in the catching department. That's the issue, not Caratini himself, or who backs up whom for the price.
  9. ashbury
    That's not Pereda. If the Twins prefer one catcher's athletic stylings over the other, and paid the price of a very marginal prospect, I'm okay with that. I'm glad if they got anything at all for Eeles. That's not to say I have a whole lot of confidence in the FO's talent assessment. But I don't have an independent insight telling me that Pereda is Jackson's equal. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They got Pereda for nothing, off the waiver wire, except the cost of his salary to be on the 26-man roster. Then they turn around and sell his services for a non-zero amount of cash. On the small, granular scale, I consider that a positive outcome. On the bigger scale, it annoys the hell out of me that they waste whatever limited FO resources on engineering these "wins."
  10. ashbury
    If so, they will do it cheaply. The way he was acquired in the first place.
  11. ashbury
    The headline had me expecting that another TD writer was dipping a toe into RandBall's Stu waters. Otherwise, yes. Nothing to see here. Jeffers is on the team. Until he isn't.
  12. ashbury
    You blink, you miss a pennant-fever roster move that swaps in Tristan Gray.
  13. ashbury
    It happens sometimes.
  14. ashbury
    Maybe you should just laugh when you get called out for making vague assertions with unknown purpose.
  15. ashbury
    Affecting the Twins uniquely, dang the luck.
  16. ashbury
    This needs to be repeated in every relief pitching thread.
  17. ashbury
    Dagnarn yeah.
  18. ashbury
    Kreidler can go ... be a shortstop, bringing the IF/OF ratio to 9/9. They still could dispense with a redundant lefty corner outfielder after that, of course. And a redundant light-hitting backup middle infielder. So, uh, yeah. Bring that '10' figure down, please.
  19. ashbury
    Which is itself a disguise for the Groucho Marx mask that lies underneath.
  20. ashbury
    The official 40-man roster at mlb.com is a bit of a mess but if I'm counting correctly they had 19 pitchers and 21 position players before the addition of two free agents, and after the two DFAs they remain at 19/21. That is an unusual ratio in recent Twins history - usually it's weighted toward 21 pitchers, which the last time I checked was also the norm for most other teams, or sometimes even 22. But removing a catcher for a new catcher, and removing a pitcher for a new pitcher, says to me that this is the ratio of players they are comfortable with for 2026, and any roster changes to come will likewise be position-for-position. I don't understand it - pitchers usually are the ones who ride the shuttle to AAA so as to extend the bullpen size to 9 on a short term but repeated basis, while we seem to have at least one redundant LH corner bat and one redundant no-hit backup infielder. Ohl in particular doesn't seem like any great shakes, but on one hand the FO seems to be saying that the relief arms we traded off last July will be replaced mostly internally, and on the other hand they seem to not especially value all of those candidate arms. I'm having a very hard time reading what the FO's plan really is.
  21. ashbury
    The discussion I want is what our chances are against the Dodgers in the World Series, and which AL team maybe stands in the way of getting there. A topic of "70 versus 82," after promises from the new FO of sustained excellence, kind of leaves me cold. It's not exactly Taylor Rogers's fault that he proved to be the catalyst for this instead.
  22. ashbury
    "Taylor Rogers Fever. Catch it."™
  23. ashbury
    Batting average doesn't depend on who's on base. If you think I was equating Wagaman with the DP-pivot situation, you're missing the point - I'm saying once-a-week matters on balls put in play.
  24. ashbury
    Someone else claimed literally "forecasting the team as 1/2 AAAA seems like a reasonable opinion" and, when they were called on it, you piped up with your list. Your caveat makes me wonder what you were trying to say, if you're now claiming it to be tangential. Why even include them?
  25. ashbury
    Assuming you're playing armchair-GM along with the rest of us, what do you base your roster decisions on?
×
×
  • Create New...