Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41,377

  • 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
    I'm almost indifferent whether the FO chooses the particular direction you suggest. But what I do want to see is this: Pick A Lane for 2026. Lately their actions seem to vary depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing.
  2. ashbury
    The gambling aspect was probably out of an abundance of caution. The real problem lies in whenever the game you think you saw on the field wasn't real. "Integrity of the game." The game always needs to be seen as a genuine contest of skills. Gambling is the best known of the reasons for that to be called into question, so they felt they needed to check it out, or at least that's my interpretation. There are times, such as "getaway day" during the long season, when people may perceive a little difference in what they usually watch, but this case went over that line considerably even if you take his story at the time at face value.
  3. ashbury
    For reference, guys already on the major league squad aren't that numerous, really. Using their ages today, the guys not already mentioned above are: Age 24: Lee, Bradley Age 23: Keaschall I hope I didn't miss someone. The pipeline isn't really that strong, batters and pitchers alike, in terms of what's about to emerge. Maybe there's more hope further up the line with the younger ones; but that's always the story, isn't it?
  4. ashbury
    I was preparing a passionate article on why the Twins shouldn't sign Lou Gehrig to play first base for them, but this one pretty much covered all the points I was going to raise, except that Goldschmidt isn't deceased.
  5. ashbury
    That average seriously misrepresents free-agency value. Every long-term contract is different, but the one Seattle signed Raleigh to blends his arbitration years with some free agency. B-r.com shows it as: $2.67M, 12.67, 13.67, 24.67, 24.67, 24.67 It's pretty clear what both sides of the bargaining table thought was a fair value for his free-agency years, modulo it being guaranteed to him several years in advance. The Mariners may feel they've locked in someone they'd have to pay even more to, when the time came. And free-agency is exactly what the Twins and Jeffers would be bargaining over. We've already gotten the benefit of his cheap years. Jeffers isn't Raleigh, but he isn't Vazquez either.
  6. ashbury
    I should have waited to give you time to respond, I see now. However, if you are interested in slimming down those fingers, I asked ChatGPT and it gave me these helpful tips: Finger Fitness Program (results not guaranteed) Repetitive Strength Training: Type the word “antidisestablishmentarianism” five times without looking. Builds precision. Fine-Motor Pilates: Practice hitting the Backspace key with elegance and control. Grip Conditioning: Squeeze a stress ball while muttering, “I meant to type that.” (I replied: "don't quit your day job, R2D2.")
  7. ashbury
    Surely a autocorrect-assisted fat-finger/typo of "there"? What's really being considered in the article is "what's the plan regarding Jeffers?" Team control runs out after this season, so he's in a different category than Buxton/Ryan/Lopez. Sign him to an extension, which will be of similar length but higher value compared to the Vazquez free agent signing? If not, then there needs to be a more detailed plan: let him walk after hopefully a productive 2026, or plan to trade him at the deadline, or trade him now. The choice among these four options probably depends in part on the team's finances, which (my guess) won't be clear even to the team until some business is conducted at the Winter Meetings to decide on ownership stakes. Thus, a lot of hemming and hawing in the article. We don't know, because they don't even know. It's a bit like Schroedinger's Cat: we don't know anything until the box is opened, and there's reason to think the box opens next week.
  8. ashbury
    It's commonly estimated that to acquire one win's worth of talent on the free agent market costs upward of $6 million. If a baseball manager were worth 10 wins all by himself, some team would gladly pay him $60M a year. I don't see salaries like that, so the teams must believe the marginal value of even the best manager to be smaller than that. / edit - ha, Mike types faster, or at least expresses himself more succinctly, than me
  9. ashbury
    If I had some eggs I could have ham and eggs, if I had some ham. 😁
  10. ashbury
    It's vitally important for the baseball fans in the Twin Cities to suffer despair over their team, in order for ownership to obtain an additional $400 million in their net worth. That's what this uncertainty boils down to. Accept or reject the economic system we live under, but that's the facts of life if you want to root for the Twins.
  11. ashbury
    Yeah, I wish I could be more constructive. I'm not saying not to make the trades. I'm just setting expectations; it's not going to be the sudden influx of multiple Walker Jenkinses that some people seem to anticipate. A franchise's fortunes tend to be cyclical; I forsee the highs for the Twins becoming less high and the lows getting ever lower. I don't think Falvey and his FO are incompetent. They just don't have some sort of "special sauce" relative to their peers. I don't think ownership is especially terrible, at least in the context that like most of their peers they view it as a business and not an expensive hobby. I just think the deck is stacked to a degree greater than 1987-1991, the era we look back at so fondly. A team winning 55 or 50 will just serve to shrink the revenue stream further, and the lower revenue isn't going to "teach ownership a lesson" or whatever it is that gets touted.
  12. ashbury
    The front office's philosophy with roster assembly where it comes to LH corner outfield seems to be: “There must be a pony in this pile somewhere!”
  13. ashbury
    We like to talk about top-100 prospects as though they are sure things, but they are not. It's instructive to turn the Wayback Machine to 10 years ago and have a look at the MLB list from then: https://www.mlb.com/milb/prospects/2015/top100/ Sure, the tippy-top prospects in that list mostly panned out very nicely. But the ones in someone's top-20 are not the top-100 prospects who will be available for pretty much any price. Will we be excited if we land somebody's #28? The equivalent 2015 prospect was Alex Jackson, who we picked up just now for very little after he's had an un-illustrious career to date. Right after him at #29 was Alex Meyer, who due to injury never really panned out for our Twins. Right after Jose Berrios at #32 (hurrah!) we see Nick Gordon at #33 (meh). Kohl Stewart at #36, anyone? Go all the way down and cast an eye at #99: Manuel Margot was an actual ballplayer for a couple of years, but I have to think hopes were higher. Of course, I'm cherry picking, for Twins fan entertainment. There is also in that 2015 list some nobody called Aaron Judge who was ranked #68; Realmuto is found a couple of slots later. Future stars are scattered in a top-100. But I think it's still a point worth remembering. Trading a good player for even a couple of top-100 prospects is no sure thing. Two top-100 prospects may be beyond what's attainable for Buxton. At the same time, such return strikes me as too little for what he's really worth to his team, unless our front office suddenly becomes elite at player evaluation.
  14. ashbury
    You know who does know, though? The Mariners and the Dodgers. No team has more top-100 prospects than them. The Dodgers know better than anyone that the old adage "money isn't everything" remains true today. That's because they have both. They have money. And they have everything.
  15. ashbury
    It's not going to be what you think. Front offices will gladly trade you volumes of second-tier prospects for your MLB talent, but the very top echelon prospects are simply not for sale, or you have to bowl them over with your offer. If Joe Ryan's our best bargaining chip, he (in a package) may net us one sure-fire young guy, but everything else we obtain in a fire sale will be speculative guys who we might be able to "coach up" to a high level of play but more likely will be average players if they develop at all. "Loading up" is going to be with Roden- and SWR-level guys. In a few seasons we'll be back to .500 at best, and then the players will start to be expensive. Lather, rinse, repeat. This is the MLB of today for some franchises..
  16. ashbury
    Could well be; that often happens with players obtained on waivers in the first place. I'm planning to second guess the timing of this strategy if we lose someone via Rule-5. Meanwhile, "if the season began tomorrow...."
  17. ashbury
    Pretty lousy headline if you're planning to write an article; only one click, mine.
  18. ashbury
    If so, that wouldn't speak well of the mental capacities of the players the Twins go after, given that other teams don't seem to suffer the same overload.
  19. ashbury
    Only one team since 2014, not counting the Covid Season, has failed to score that many runs. That would be the legendary '24 White Sox, Are you suggesting we are entering legend-making territory?
  20. ashbury
    Under this ground rule, I would start with the 40-man roster. The roster that exists, as it is - not a different 40-man that I would wish. On that larger roster are Ryan Kreidler and James Outman. They do not have minor-league options remaining. If they're on the 40-man, then they're on the 26-man. I don't even see Kreidler mentioned in this article - presumably the author assumes he is in DFA land, but that opens up a spot on the 40-man that might play a significant role in this 26-man exercise*. By this logic, "if the season began tomorrow" Kreidler and Outman stay, Fitzgerald and (I guess) Roden go. Fortunately the Twins are not otherwise very constrained by players who lack minor-league options (or, equivalently, have sufficient service time to refuse a trip to the minors even if options technically remain). Buxton, Clemens, Jeffers, Jackson, Julien are the others besides Kreidler and Outman who would have to pass through waivers to be sent to the minors. On the pitching side there is Pablo and SWR and Topa - the team can play mix-n-match with everyone else. You know who has one minor-league option and only 4+ years of service time? Trevor Larnach. Is someone brave enough to construct a roster that has Larnach laboring in AAA for X million dollars this season so that, say, Roden can be up on Opening Day? 😁 * Or who could have been protected from the Rule-5 draft, and thus hanging onto Kreidler was a complete waste of a roster spot
  21. ashbury
    Not until October. You'll have plenty of time.
  22. ashbury
    "Do Articles With Headlines Ending In A Question Mark Trigger An Immediate Response Of 'NO'?" Wait. I may have miscalculated ...
  23. ashbury
    NTP - Ben Revere
    Memories? I remember a two-hopper he threw to his cutoff man. His arm was so bad that it was perfectly logical to play him in Right Field. Why? Because, opposing baserunners would take third base on him even if he were in left, so why not? Even though Trevor May never quite lived up to expectations for the Twins, it still seemed like a masterstroke by Terry Ryan to get anything for Ben in trade at all. Except... he did go on to provide value to the Phillies, and then the Blue Jays... which is not easy for a guy with essentially zero power (even for doubles). Some of which... makes it sound like I hated the guy, which I didn't. He had an infectious smile, as the saying goes. He could certainly go get the ball on defense, and he had a certain measure of productivity at the plate He was a disappointment as a first rounder only if you overlook that drafting late in the first round is hardly ever a sure thing - the five guys picked immediately after Ben amounted to less. Todd Frazier, Sean Doolittle and Josh Donaldson were drafted shortly thereafter, but that's verging into 20/20 hindsight - plus we made up for the oversight on Donaldson by signing him as a free agent later on - whoops, LOL.
  24. ashbury
    I looked at the list of major league players ranked by runs scored in 2025. To find someone with fewer than 10 HR, you have to go all the way down to the 33rd ranked run-scorer, Nico Hoerner, who amassed 89 runs; next on the list was Ernie Clement with 83. Everyone else with low HR totals did worse. Collaboration? Apparently, all the power hitters in the majors are failing to do their jobs and drive their small-ball teammates in. Remember the old timey saying that home run hitters drive Cadillacs and singles hitters drive Fords? Every one of the 12 players who did score 100 this year had at least 22 HR, and only two had fewer than 30. You want to find run-scoring, look for the HR hitters Singles hitters don't score at the rapid clip that people assume they do. It's not a matter of fame that decides what car a player drives, it's raw productivity. I'm not saying you can't have a player like Martin on your roster, but let's not elevate him to something that he's not; an on-base machine that generates runs. We should be looking to do better. And it's a sad state of affairs for this team that he's far from the biggest problem on offense.
  25. ashbury
    I think you just amplified my point. I was taking issue with BA being the be-all and end-all. I will make a similar argument the next time St. Luis de Arraez is mentioned in glowing terms, probably. They are incomplete hitters. People complain about analytics, but when actual run-scoring is brought up, it turns out that some of the folks here do like analytics just fine - just their own. BA was one of the first forms of base-ball analytics (in the earliest days the Batting Champion was the player with the greatest number of hits) and some people still prefer it to forms that take all the many facets of hitting into account, even when it's pointed out that BA alone without power to go with it leads to mediocre-at-best run scoring. BTW, I took a look and the 2024 Guardians were almost exactly league-average at scoring runs despite posting a below-par .238 BA, because their power numbers were also league-average. They had plenty of guys with Isolated Power (ISO) .150 or above. Martin last season had ISO of .083 - this is where his problem is, and Cleveland that season had exactly one regular or semi-regular at that level, Andres Gimenez, plus seldom-used backup catcher Austin Hedges (what is it about guys named Austin?). I'm not sure Cleveland's the team you want to draw connections to a team (nearly) full of Martins, because they weren't.
×
×
  • Create New...