Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    31,876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    362

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    ashbury reacted to jun in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    If you don't care about winning, you can certainly let Pineda walk. I don't believe Twins can sign or trade for multiple starters who are A LOT better than Pineda. Maybe that could happen in your dream.
  2. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Mark G in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    A team option is a huge perk for a team, and is not agreed to lightly. 
    If 2/$22 plus incentives is about fair, then probably the agent would ask at least for those incentives to be turned into guaranteed money, in exchange for including the option - e.g. $13M guaranteed plus an option on the second year for $13M with a $2M buyout.
    That works out to $15M actually guaranteed, which is still less than the $22M guarantee in the other plan, but some chance for Mike to sign with someone else that second year that make up the $7M difference or could be greater or could be smaller.  Basically more risk borne by him than by the team, so I might be a little light on what the agent would ask for - maybe some innings incentives added back into one or both years, after all.  There may be tax implications for the player, doing it one way versus the other, too.
  3. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from HrbieFan in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    A team option is a huge perk for a team, and is not agreed to lightly. 
    If 2/$22 plus incentives is about fair, then probably the agent would ask at least for those incentives to be turned into guaranteed money, in exchange for including the option - e.g. $13M guaranteed plus an option on the second year for $13M with a $2M buyout.
    That works out to $15M actually guaranteed, which is still less than the $22M guarantee in the other plan, but some chance for Mike to sign with someone else that second year that make up the $7M difference or could be greater or could be smaller.  Basically more risk borne by him than by the team, so I might be a little light on what the agent would ask for - maybe some innings incentives added back into one or both years, after all.  There may be tax implications for the player, doing it one way versus the other, too.
  4. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Minny505 in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    A team option is a huge perk for a team, and is not agreed to lightly. 
    If 2/$22 plus incentives is about fair, then probably the agent would ask at least for those incentives to be turned into guaranteed money, in exchange for including the option - e.g. $13M guaranteed plus an option on the second year for $13M with a $2M buyout.
    That works out to $15M actually guaranteed, which is still less than the $22M guarantee in the other plan, but some chance for Mike to sign with someone else that second year that make up the $7M difference or could be greater or could be smaller.  Basically more risk borne by him than by the team, so I might be a little light on what the agent would ask for - maybe some innings incentives added back into one or both years, after all.  There may be tax implications for the player, doing it one way versus the other, too.
  5. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from glunn in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    A team option is a huge perk for a team, and is not agreed to lightly. 
    If 2/$22 plus incentives is about fair, then probably the agent would ask at least for those incentives to be turned into guaranteed money, in exchange for including the option - e.g. $13M guaranteed plus an option on the second year for $13M with a $2M buyout.
    That works out to $15M actually guaranteed, which is still less than the $22M guarantee in the other plan, but some chance for Mike to sign with someone else that second year that make up the $7M difference or could be greater or could be smaller.  Basically more risk borne by him than by the team, so I might be a little light on what the agent would ask for - maybe some innings incentives added back into one or both years, after all.  There may be tax implications for the player, doing it one way versus the other, too.
  6. Like
    ashbury reacted to stringer bell in Settling in at Shortstop   
    Both players changed teams at the trade deadline, why didn't you include the entire year for both? If you want to make an argument to bring either player in maybe they should be considered for the same period of time.
  7. Haha
    ashbury got a reaction from wabene in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Two aphorisms come to mind:
    For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. – H. L. Mencken
    Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.  - Albert Einstein
    So I'm kind of trying to thread the needle here, between two smart guys.
  8. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from TopGunn#22 in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Keeping Jake Cave isn't a hill I would die on.   I've been on record a long time for not liking his game very much.  If you or someone else want to keep Garlick as the OF place holder instead, it's not terribly consequential, but IMO we have an oversupply of options for the corners.
    Celestino is on the 40-man and I would of course keep him, but I'm not confident he'll be ready on Opening Day - his good AAA numbers are built on a rather high number of hits dropping in.  I drop Refsnyder and Garlick because their bats aren't any better than Cave and they do not have his range - Refsnyder hurt himself trying to play CF, after all.  Dropping Cave too, brings the OF count down to 5 and that's too thin.  The acquisition of someone better than Cave in center will make his departure assured and painless.  We are short on up the middle talent.
  9. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from TopGunn#22 in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    In trying to get down to 40 players to begin the off-season, I start from a similar point as others have stated.  40-man roster management is hard, but becomes at least a little less intractable by partitioning it into playing positions.  The coarsest such partition is simply hitters and pitchers.  A 20-20 split between them isn't how it's done anymore, but for this stage of thinking I'm going to aim for 19-21 rather than radically overweight toward pitching with 18-22 or even 17-23.
    According to MLB's 40-man roster for our Twins, there are currently 20 batters either on that roster or else temporarily shielded by being on the 60-day IL.  (That same logic comes to 29 pitchers, so the next part of the decision making process is going to be more difficult).  So now I further partition into 3 groups.
    Catching: we have 3 guys on the roster (not counting Astudillo), and I keep all 3.  Gee, this is easier than I thought.
    Infield: In this group I include Arraez, Astudillo, and Rooker (1B for lack of a real position) which gives a count of 9.  I let Simmons walk, and DFA Maggi.  Replacing them are Royce Lewis and Jose Miranda who are rule-5 eligible, leaving the total at 9.  Still fairly easy.  I'm missing a true shortstop but that probably has to come from free agency - I don't prematurely cut someone else in anticipation, but when that time comes, there will be candidates remaining - we're not an all-star squad.
    Outfield: Counting Kirilloff (whom some might think debatable in the OF) there are 8.  I am happy to mark for disposal Garlick and Refsnyder who are mediocre hitters with no outstanding defensive talent to help make a case.  That leaves only 6, which is a little light, but several of the nominal infielders can fill in, in left.  CF remains the most critical to have coverage for, and Cave seems to remain the best range if Buxton is unavailable and Celestino's bat isn't ready next spring - and Lewis among the infielders might be capable in CF but is right now too much of a question mark - so I am not quite as eager to be rid of Jake.  Anyway, that brings us to 6.
    Huh. 3+9+6=18, so I came in with 1 fewer than I expected.  Maybe I protect Maciel in CF, but he had a mediocre year at high-A so I don't think Baddoo Lightning will strike again.  No, I'll hold off on adding him (conceptually) to my 40-man planning until the pitching side of the question is sorted out better.
    In summary, Simmons walks, and I explore quick trades involving Maggi, Refsnyder, and Garlick, planning to DFA them if nothing like that pans out (it probably won't in each case) before 40-man rosters are locked in for the off-season.
    Next up, the hard part: pitching.
     
    / Those who know me will assume that my thinking is heavily influenced by having played dozens of off-seasons using Out Of The Park.  The above does indeed reflect how I go about it, but no one wants to read me wax eloquent about that aspect.  Suffice to say that I have been burned too many times by allowing my roster to be unbalanced and thus too small in one area of need during the course of a long season.
  10. Like
    ashbury reacted to Brock Beauchamp in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Tampa/Oakland have zero championships in the past 20 years.
    Yankees/Dodgers have two championships in the past 20 years.
    Perhaps there are other ways to win.
  11. Like
    ashbury reacted to Brock Beauchamp in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Ughhhhh I cannot state how much I hate this brand of baseball thought. Who cares if Polanco has "peaked"? He's a good player and the Twins need good players. Every team needs good players.
    Tampa is an extremely well-run franchise but they're also a bunch of empty uniforms. There's a reason the fanbase is non-existent. They're also a ****ing scam. Their entire payroll budget is roughly what they received in national television revenue from MLB this season. They're raking in money hand over fist and deserve huge ridicule for it. They pull the crap they do on their fans because they want to, not because they need to.
    As a fan, I want my team to be good and I want to cheer on players I recognize and like. The Twins do not need to operate like Tampa. No team needs to operate like Tampa, including Tampa.
    There are times it makes sense to trade good players. I didn't have an issue with the Berrios trade due to the short-term incompetence of the team and the return on the player. I didn't love trading Berrios but understood it was a reasonable baseball move.
    But it's a big jump to go from Berrios to trading a good, cost-controlled player in his prime like Polanco. That would just straight-up piss me off.
  12. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from mikelink45 in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Keeping Jake Cave isn't a hill I would die on.   I've been on record a long time for not liking his game very much.  If you or someone else want to keep Garlick as the OF place holder instead, it's not terribly consequential, but IMO we have an oversupply of options for the corners.
    Celestino is on the 40-man and I would of course keep him, but I'm not confident he'll be ready on Opening Day - his good AAA numbers are built on a rather high number of hits dropping in.  I drop Refsnyder and Garlick because their bats aren't any better than Cave and they do not have his range - Refsnyder hurt himself trying to play CF, after all.  Dropping Cave too, brings the OF count down to 5 and that's too thin.  The acquisition of someone better than Cave in center will make his departure assured and painless.  We are short on up the middle talent.
  13. Like
    ashbury reacted to LastOnePicked in Is Trevor Larnach Better Than His Stats?   
    I like your optimism, but that price would make any GM hang up the phone, wouldn't it? I mean, I think virtually every other team already has a prospect like Larnach - corner OF big bat potential, with not-so-good first-year MLB results. He could be thrown in as a part of package, sure, but I'd be surprised if any other GM even so much as casually checks in on his availability in an offseason trade call.
    I like him, but the young man has a lot left to prove, and the Twins recently gave away for nothing two young OFs who are far, far better all-around players. No big swaps needed - all a GM has to do is wait to snatch up our unprotected talent.
  14. Haha
    ashbury got a reaction from Squirrel in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    Two aphorisms come to mind:
    For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. – H. L. Mencken
    Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.  - Albert Einstein
    So I'm kind of trying to thread the needle here, between two smart guys.
  15. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Squirrel in 40-man roster decisions, part 1: position players   
    In trying to get down to 40 players to begin the off-season, I start from a similar point as others have stated.  40-man roster management is hard, but becomes at least a little less intractable by partitioning it into playing positions.  The coarsest such partition is simply hitters and pitchers.  A 20-20 split between them isn't how it's done anymore, but for this stage of thinking I'm going to aim for 19-21 rather than radically overweight toward pitching with 18-22 or even 17-23.
    According to MLB's 40-man roster for our Twins, there are currently 20 batters either on that roster or else temporarily shielded by being on the 60-day IL.  (That same logic comes to 29 pitchers, so the next part of the decision making process is going to be more difficult).  So now I further partition into 3 groups.
    Catching: we have 3 guys on the roster (not counting Astudillo), and I keep all 3.  Gee, this is easier than I thought.
    Infield: In this group I include Arraez, Astudillo, and Rooker (1B for lack of a real position) which gives a count of 9.  I let Simmons walk, and DFA Maggi.  Replacing them are Royce Lewis and Jose Miranda who are rule-5 eligible, leaving the total at 9.  Still fairly easy.  I'm missing a true shortstop but that probably has to come from free agency - I don't prematurely cut someone else in anticipation, but when that time comes, there will be candidates remaining - we're not an all-star squad.
    Outfield: Counting Kirilloff (whom some might think debatable in the OF) there are 8.  I am happy to mark for disposal Garlick and Refsnyder who are mediocre hitters with no outstanding defensive talent to help make a case.  That leaves only 6, which is a little light, but several of the nominal infielders can fill in, in left.  CF remains the most critical to have coverage for, and Cave seems to remain the best range if Buxton is unavailable and Celestino's bat isn't ready next spring - and Lewis among the infielders might be capable in CF but is right now too much of a question mark - so I am not quite as eager to be rid of Jake.  Anyway, that brings us to 6.
    Huh. 3+9+6=18, so I came in with 1 fewer than I expected.  Maybe I protect Maciel in CF, but he had a mediocre year at high-A so I don't think Baddoo Lightning will strike again.  No, I'll hold off on adding him (conceptually) to my 40-man planning until the pitching side of the question is sorted out better.
    In summary, Simmons walks, and I explore quick trades involving Maggi, Refsnyder, and Garlick, planning to DFA them if nothing like that pans out (it probably won't in each case) before 40-man rosters are locked in for the off-season.
    Next up, the hard part: pitching.
     
    / Those who know me will assume that my thinking is heavily influenced by having played dozens of off-seasons using Out Of The Park.  The above does indeed reflect how I go about it, but no one wants to read me wax eloquent about that aspect.  Suffice to say that I have been burned too many times by allowing my roster to be unbalanced and thus too small in one area of need during the course of a long season.
  16. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Brandon in Pineda's return for 2022? What is his contract like?   
    A team option is a huge perk for a team, and is not agreed to lightly. 
    If 2/$22 plus incentives is about fair, then probably the agent would ask at least for those incentives to be turned into guaranteed money, in exchange for including the option - e.g. $13M guaranteed plus an option on the second year for $13M with a $2M buyout.
    That works out to $15M actually guaranteed, which is still less than the $22M guarantee in the other plan, but some chance for Mike to sign with someone else that second year that make up the $7M difference or could be greater or could be smaller.  Basically more risk borne by him than by the team, so I might be a little light on what the agent would ask for - maybe some innings incentives added back into one or both years, after all.  There may be tax implications for the player, doing it one way versus the other, too.
  17. WTF
    ashbury reacted to RpR in Saddest sports city   
    That team is on the level of Minor League baseball, no matter how one wants to glorify women's sports.
    Women's golf is still second string and it has been around a long, long time with a Minnesotan Woman, Patty Berg who was one of the best.
    I nearly bought a set of her golf clubs at a large flea market at the Minn. State Fair Grounds, twenty years ago, as they were long enough for me, I am six feet tall,  but while  I have never broken, or bent a golf club, at that,  they looked a bit fragile;  I was curios what it would be like, playing with the golf club heads she had.
  18. Like
    ashbury reacted to Squirrel in Saddest sports city   
    The Lynx won the championship in 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2017 ... so, no, it hasn't been since 1991.
  19. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Otto von Ballpark in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    We all need to click Like on this blog post of Brock's so that he can keep the prize he so clearly esteems.
  20. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from ToddlerHarmon in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    We all need to click Like on this blog post of Brock's so that he can keep the prize he so clearly esteems.
  21. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from Sconnie in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    We all need to click Like on this blog post of Brock's so that he can keep the prize he so clearly esteems.
  22. Haha
  23. Like
    ashbury got a reaction from TopGunn#22 in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    We all need to click Like on this blog post of Brock's so that he can keep the prize he so clearly esteems.
  24. Like
    ashbury reacted to Squirrel in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    Owners and staff are exempt ... so I suggest that we start clicking like on all your posts for a prize you seem jealous that someone else may win  
  25. Like
    ashbury reacted to Brock Beauchamp in Do you have the right stuff to be the top contributor in our community?   
    Given that I control the god account on the site, I’m considering logging in under 100 different accounts just to like your post, ash. 
×
×
  • Create New...