Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,579

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    473

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by ashbury

  1. ashbury
    I maintain the thought that it's not a matter of intent but of ability. Sometimes Good Gibby shows up and he has command. Other times Bad Gibby is on the mound and he can't put the ball where he wants it. For too long it's been 50-50 or worse which one we get. The key is whether he can find the cliched "consistency" that everyone hopes for.
  2. ashbury
    It's a fresh waiver, so they would need to add him to the 40-man like any other team. He has a minor league option remaining, so if they simply want to put him in AAA they can. But, if they want to again remove him from the 40-man, they would need to put him on waivers again, and I think doing it* a second time has additional ramifications such as allowing him to choose free agency. Which, if he was fed up enough, he just might. * Actually, Designated For Assignment, which is closely tied, but this note has become too long already
  3. ashbury
    The Twins currently have 39 players on their roster...
  4. ashbury
    Agreed. But he has played a tiny amount during his career at 2B/3B, and if he's willing to embrace a utility role for the remainder of his pro career then I don't think the position player roster for Rochester will be so full of near-ready young infielders that he couldn't play full-time at second or third, in preference to some other AAAA type of player. He has the opt-out on March 27, and there's a recent MLBTR post saying he drew interest from the Reds and Rangers too, so the choice really is up to him.
  5. ashbury
    They could both be wrong, too. Maybe FalVine are distraught over the current state of the rotation, but have given up on there being any better alternatives out there.
  6. ashbury
    True. But they know the priority order, which means they know that IF their claim goes through, many teams did not put in a claim. That's actually useful knowledge.
  7. ashbury
    Bottom line,for me, is I want one simple change by MLB. If Team A doesn't want a player on the 40-man, Team B can take him and place him on theirs. If they later change their mind, maybe Team C takes him. And so on, and so on. But eventually, he gets waived and he finally passes through waivers; at that point, he should revert to team A's minor league system, not whichever team happened to be last. Same as if he had cleared waivers in the first place. For a calendar year, or until the next World Series, or something like that. That's the change. The player's interests are protected, for as long as someone wants to give him a 40-man spot, but the phony game-playing of Hot Potato no longer pays off. The fact the Dodgers pick so low (he did almost make it through) only increases my suspicion this selection isn't for the player's own benefit, but just a way to grab a guy for their system for a year and see what happens.
  8. ashbury
    Depending on how seriously you meant this, I may rescind my Like.
  9. ashbury
    Reasonable depth move, given that he was willing to sign a minor league contract.
  10. ashbury
    You took this awfully personally. Phrases like "the quicker you get off of the wrong path, the better" makes a commonly used general usage of the word "you" - and it was a conclusion to the "what next" rhetorical question. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
  11. ashbury
    Which comes at the expense of some other nice fellow who would get those benefits instead. I'm all for the players, but this is a zero-sum game for them. It's an annoyance for a fan like me, who follows prospects to some degree, with no real overall value to the game as a whole, since for example my Dodgers counterparts probably are saying "ho hum".
  12. ashbury
    How long until the Dodgers waive and designate for assignment Chargois? One of my pet peeves. I'd place the over-under around March 15, I suppose.
  13. ashbury
    Do you blog here? TD makes it pretty easy. Might be exactly what you are looking for.
  14. ashbury
    He's apparently receiving disciplinary action, but this highlights the disconnect between theory and reality, when we talk about providing ever increasing levels of armed resistance to thwart atrocities. This guy took up a defensive position, but it's not clear to me that it's known for certain what better action he could have taken. The uncertainty inherent in such a situation kind of guarantees that. There's surely no value in his going in gung-ho and getting picked off in the first three seconds. It's immensely admirable to be the one who heads toward where the trouble is rather than away, but you do need to stay alive in order to accomplish anything. We did what the gun lobby demanded. Hired an armed "school resource deputy". It accomplished bupkis. So now, what next? Arm the teachers, and then hold them "partially liable" if they freeze up and fail to take decisive action? There's this mistaken notion that if you arm enough people, some Hero will swoop in and make things right like in the movies. Instead, what will happen occasionally is one Hero will fire at another Hero, or some of the kids get caught in crossfire, thereby compounding the problem. This poor schlub at least didn't make things worse, but in any case his hiring did not achieve the intended purpose. But there is no gun problem too big, apparently, that can't be solved by more guns. As Homer Simpson said, "TO ALCOHOL! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." Any time one is following Homer Simpson's train of thought, it should be disquieting. The quicker you get off of the wrong path, the better.
  15. ashbury
    If he does, he won't appear in the lineup unless playing an NL team.
  16. ashbury
    I think we just might be seeing a preview of our getaway-day lineup!
  17. ashbury
    Los Angeles missed their chance when they didn't pony up to acquire him a year ago. They could have marketed Dodger Dogs, Doyer Dogs, and Dozier Dogs. Stupid cheapskate Dodgers.
  18. ashbury
    Mrs Ash and I went to see showings of the Oscar nominated shorts. Divided into three sessions, for Documentaries, Animation, and Short Subjects. Lots of good stuff out there. https://shorts.tv/theoscarshorts/
  19. ashbury
    Probably some seeming difference of opinion comes from fuzzy terms like "all in". I want my team spending like a mid-market team payroll for the major league portion of their expenses, and sub-$100M payrolls should be a thing of the past. So I was in favor of Darvish, and let the owners (since it's a privately held company) sort out the bookkeeping to make that happen while minimizing the effect of dead money in later years, since I see the payroll as still deficient now and in the recent past. Don't spend just to spend, but don't use money as an excuse when you lose by lowballing a high-end talent if you still have room. Go all-in, in the sense of using up available salary room for this season. There's wiggle room for next year and we should let that take care of itself (Mauer, ESan, Dozier) in the fullness of time. But I don't demand that the team balloon for a while to, say, $160M a year payroll. That or above might be going all in, but I'm not in favor, because likely it would mean lean years afterward that could shorten the window of contention. Likewise, I'm in favor of trading from surplus prospects, to strengthen the team (or the farm system too). If Archer could have been had for that, great. But going all-in to get Archer gets a thumbs down from me, if it costs Royce Lewis, and that kind of sounds like what Tampa was angling for. Bottom line, all-in is complicated, but we use it like a simple term.
  20. ashbury
    All's well that ends good, I suppose.
  21. ashbury
    Sure. And Ricky Bobby was a fictional character, and satire at that. Anyway I don't claim someone else's perspective is wrong in regard to the WS. Just laying out where I am coming from.
  22. ashbury
    I understand the point but still disagree. I think it's a mistake to pinpoint one season as the best chance. Once the window of contention has opened, you just don't know. Also I think I never want to see the organization go all in, because I dislike the feast-or-famine that it presumes. But I'm not one who measures success only by a World Series win, and I also believe that going all in increases your chance by that yardstick by only a little, while delaying the arrival of the next contending core. But that said, I want the team to spend money every year, at a level that requires successful attendance and all that comes with it; failure should be a little painful.
  23. ashbury
    I always like the saying, "I don't want left-handed pitching, I want pitching that can get left-handed batters out." Obviously there is a great deal of overlap, but the difference in perspective is what I prefer.
  24. ashbury
    I guess I have to join the crowd of voices taking issue with the overall concept. Once you have a core, plan to take the best advantage of whoever has a career year or thereabout - and in a season where two or three happen to all do that, make sure they were already surrounded with a good supporting cast - and you can't know that until you are well into the season, so that means just keep acquiring assets. 2016 may turn out to be an aberration that obscured that the window opened a little while ago. But it's open now, and stands a good chance of remaining open for several years, so I would not bother trying to pinpoint one "peak" season, and instead strive to improve every year, until it reaches a point where you're just trying to plug holes that arise on an already-very good team. That, at any rate, would be my high-level plan for a team like this for the coming half a decade or so.
  25. ashbury
    We could send down to AAA all the Twins batters born in 1993 or later, if Rochester's batting order is thought to be a concern.
×
×
  • Create New...