Oxtung
-
Posts
2,027 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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 Oxtung
-
They have a few other arms that are interesting. Taylor Glasnow 19yo A ball: 2.27 ERA, 87IP, 46H, 48 BB, 122 K's, .154 BAA, 1.08 WHIP Nick Kingham 21yo A+/AA: 3.01 ERA, 113IP, 91H, 28 BB, 110K's, .217 BAA, 1.05 WHIP Victor Black 25yo AAA Relief: 2.31ERA, 35 IP, 20H, 13 BB, 51K's, .161 BAA, 0.94 WHIP All of these guys have FB's that can touch 95. Black is obviously a reliever but could be part of a package of players perhaps including Alen Hanson the SS, although there is question if he can stay there. They also have a top 100 pitcher named Luis Heredia, who is only 18, at A ball this season but he has been injured most of the year only pitching in 6 games.
-
Not disingenuous at all. I really would rather have them try and fail then to not try at all. I'm not sure what you're arguing against really. You have claimed many times that there was no way we were getting Sanchez or Greinke or Jackson who are the only pitchers who signed long term deals. If they Twins had signed one of the other pitchers who failed but they were only signed to 1 or 2 year deals then what difference does it make? How is that worse than signing Pelfrey and Correia? It's not like Pelfrey and Correia have done anything to improve this club. We still have the worst starting rotation in baseball. We still aren't competitive. So what exactly would have been lost by signing one of those "failures"? -
I have actually done research on the 25 largest pitching contracts signed and let me say you are off base here. How about these guys? Pedro Martinez: 6 seasons, 212 ERA+, 194 IP/season Roy Halladay: 3 Seasons, 159 ERA+, 245 IP/season Roy Oswalt: 5 seasons, 121 ERA+, 191 IP/Season Mark Buerhle: 4 Seasons, 115 ERA+, 212 IP/Season I could continue if you really wanted but what it comes down to is on average over a 5 season contract you'll get 1 injured season, 1 below average season and 3 great to elite seasons. Over the course of the contract an ERA+ of 116 with an average of 200 IP/season excluding the injured year is mean. For those of you against signing an elite pitcher I have a question. What percentage of bottom of the barrel pitchers have produced an elite season? Is there a team that has gotten 3 elite seasons out of every 5 pitchers they sign?
-
Your argument would be much stronger if anyone had made that argument. Instead, people have consistently argued for signing quality FA's to attempt to improve the squad while we wait for that future. In any given year if they aren't competitive then look to trade those FA's for prospects which will just further help the future. It is possible to both use FA to help the current club as well as help the future club. They are not mutually exclusive no matter how many times that fallacy is repeated.
-
Yes they could have tied current and future funds into "horrible signings". I would have preferred they did. It would mean that this FO is trying to improve the team. That they were willing to make an effort, to take a risk trying make 2013 better than 2012. Instead their actions show they punted on the 2013 season while simultaneously declaring to season ticket holders they were going to do everything they could to make this team competitive. That their goal was to play meaningful games in September. That two faced attitude is despicable. The implication that the public would not be able to discern those lies is insulting. I can accept failure, we can learn from it but complacency will not improve the Twins. You state that the off season was a wash which means that you believe something positive did occur. I would be interested in hear what that positive was.
-
So the GM that knew ahead of time there was an injury risk is more culpable where as the GM of the fluke injury is less. Doesn't that mean that it is the fore knowledge that is important? I came to that conclusion because that seems to be what you were arguing. Here is one example: I will accept that I misinterpreted your comments. I am just trying to understand your view point and for the life of me I cannot. I honestly see absolutely no reason, other than as a warm bodies that can walk out to the mound every 5th day, to consider this off season as anything other than a failure. There was nothing that was improved this off season and that was almost a given when we entered spring training with Pelfrey and Correia as our "pretty darn good pitcher'" added in FA. To be clear my problem is with the free agent acquisitions, I am happy with the trades to acquire high upside talent.
-
Because it is hard to improve we shouldn't try. Since we shouldn't try it doesn't matter what pitchers we sign. It doesn't matter what pitchers we sign because we were going to be bad anyways. That seems to be the logic you're following here. Perhaps the fundamental difference between our points of view comes down to this: I think the Twins should have tried their hardest to improve the Twins for both 2013 and beyond whereas you believe 2013 was a lost cause and so it doesn't matter and we are just waiting for beyond?
-
Parmelee and Dozier, while their overall offensive lines have not been great, have been very pleasant surprises defensively including this awesome play a few nights ago: http://wapc.mlb.com/min/play/?tcid=mm_min_vid&c_id=min&content_id=28977405
-
I have no idea the long term outlook after having surgery for thoracic outlet syndrome but if he is expected to make a full recovery I would be very interested in acquiring him for the 2014 season. When healthy he is a #2 starter in this league. I would also guess he is going to get a "show me" type contract that won't be too expensive. Win-Win if you ask me. Of course this all depends on what his prognosis is going forward.
-
Who is disregarding? I said, if there are no monetary considerations, his past actions make it clear that he would prefer going to a potential winner. That says nothing about his actions when money is on the line though. You're arguing apples and oranges. The only things we know are that he signed with the team that paid him the most. He publicly stated he signed with them because they paid him the most. There is nothing inconsistent in his actions. There is no reason to believe that is a lie.
-
Whether the Twins coaches deserve credit for how Correia and Pelfrey have pitched is a separate argument than whether Ryan made a good decision with signing him in the first place. I have no knowledge of the situation to know if Correia's first month was because of something he did or because the Twins worked wonders and as such will not attempt to place credit or blame on any individual. What does Ryan deserve credit for exactly? The starting pitching staff is still the worst in baseball. The Twins are not competitive. Supposedly Correia and Pelfrey are worth very little on the trade market. As far as I can tell, other than just finding bodies who can make it out to the mound every fifth day, nothing was accomplished last offseason. Shouldn't he be trying to improve our team with every decision?
-
He had nothing to gain with his comment. In fact he had very much to lose with that comment. He had already signed with the Dodgers as this was his explanation for signing with them. So he wasn't getting more money. I fail to see how any remarks he makes about his contract will in anyway impact his position in the clubhouse. That will be determined by how he interacts both with the other players and with the coaches and other staff of the Dodgers. A trade is by no means the same as signing in free agency. No money was on the line when he was traded. So sure, when money is not a factor, I believe that Greinke wants to go to a winner. If winning was all it was about why go to the Dodgers? They hadn't gone to the playoffs in three seasons. They only had one season of 90+ wins in the last eight years. That is hardly a franchise that screams, "Come here and you will win a championship!!"
-
And what exactly has that done for the Twins? We are not in contention and from everything I've read he is not expected to bring back anything of value on the trade market. As far as I can tell he has not helped the Twins in any way. That has been my problem from the beginning. He had no upside.
-
I'll start with your second question first. I wouldn't call injuries "flukey" because they happen for very specific reasons, but I don't think we are able to predict when an injury will occur because we don't know enough about the human body, either in general and in regards to a specific player. However, I am no doctor and if you have information to contradict this I would be happy to read any links you can provide. To your first question, I think you're missing my point. I am not arguing either should or shouldn't be held accountable. I am saying that, even in Brock's own analysis and your own a few posts earlier, it is the fore knowledge that is important in assigning culpability.
-
Article: What's wrong with Scott Diamond?
Oxtung replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
This isn't statistical analysis. This is mechanics. The Twins are all about mechanics. -
Look at what you wrote here Brock. Everything is about what a GM should have known before he signed said pitcher. You argue a GM can't know someone is going to get hit by a bus therefore it shouldn't be held against him. Then you say we know that signing pitchers long term carries significant risk and the GM of the Mets knew this before he signed Santana therefore he should be held accountable.
-
Whether the Twins would have or should have signed Greinke is beyond my point. Certainly valid points have been made on both sides of the argument and I personally have no desire to rehash that conversation. My only point was to refute the argument that Greinke would turn down the Twins offer simply because they were a losing team. BTW, Greinke made the statement after he had signed with the Dodgers so it wasn't a marketing ploy.
-
Look at the tenses you use in this paragraph. Everything you are saying is about what the manager did or didn't know before he signed said player. I don't understand what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
-
If you meant including the good pitchers then I misunderstood your point. Mea Culpa. I agree you can't have it both ways, that was my point that you originally quoted. I guess we're not disagree on this. Why exactly should we not believe Greinke when he is talking about his motivations, something that only Greinke can know?
-
What do you think about the J.A. Happ signing? How about keeping Mastroianni for this season? How about Chris Carpenter? Santana's signing with the Mets? You've said it right in your paragraph actually. It is about the information he had at hand and what decisions he made with it. Not about things he can't control.
-
I am only judging KC based on his statistics this year and in past seasons. They are not kind to him. As for his trade value you are correct that we don't ultimately know his value yet. On the other hand he has not been mentioned as having any value that I have seen. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to reconsider that position. I see that you have left off judging TR by the good pitchers he didn't sign. What was that about intellectual honesty? The only person who knows those things is Zach Greinke himself. The only words we have from Mr. Greinke is that he would sign with any team that paid the most money. You seem to be implying that you know more than Mr. Greinke about Mr. Greinke's own actions. That seems preposterous to me.
-
That is a very valid point and one I had not considered. On the other hand endorsements are just opportunities with nothing guaranteed unlike a contract. He would also be sharing the LA market with not just the superstars on the Angels but also with the Dodgers (and all the other sports teams there), hollywood stars and the other high profile people who live in/near L.A. For the Twins he would be sharing endorsement opportunities with Mauer, perhaps Morneau, Adrian Peterson, Jared Allen and one or two of the Wild and Wolves though I don't know enough about hockey and pro basketball to mention names. Just to be clear he specifically mentioned "the team that pays the most" in his previously quoted statement.
-
I'm actually not very intrigued by the Braves pitching prospects (excluding some of their more highly thought of guys that we wouldn't have a shot at anyways). Cody Martin and Juan Jaime are the only ones that are interesting to me.
-
He signed a pitcher that has pitched to the best of his abilities and is worth next to nothing in the trade market and has been only mediocre for this team (and if you look at his peripherals that might be generous). He also signed a pitcher that has been bad and it was easy to see he was going to be bad. Can you explain to me how he did "a pretty good job"? If you are giving credit to Ryan for the pitchers he didn't sign then he also needs to be held accountable for those he did sign, which have been bad, and those good pitchers he didn't sign. You can't have it both ways. Ryan shouldn't be judged on how players perform after they were signed. He should be judged on how they were expected to perform at the time of the signings. He has little control over what happens after the pen meets the paper.
-
You are disputing comments made by Greinke about Greinke. You don't know the man. You don't have any inside information. Do you see how preposterous that is?
