Jump to content
Can the Twins take advantage of a reeling Mets team? Join the discussion! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mark G

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mark G

  1. Mark G
    I think that this post is the one I agree with the most, and the one that scares me the most. Buck can make the catches into the walls, the diving ones where he stretches himself out 110%, and the ones where he takes over for the corner guys, almost crashing into them. He can do it all. But he can't do it without getting hurt. He has always had to choose, and he has always known it, between the spectacular and the safe, and we have seen the choices. As for some of it not being his fault, I guess that is partly true. He has fouled a ball off his foot and broke a bone. He gets hit by a pitch in the hand and breaks a bone. He runs the bases and pulls something, etc., etc., etc. We have had to accept the fact he is fragile, physically. In the prime of his life this may change, and if it does we can keep this debate going......and going......and going. Let's hope we do. And let's hope the offense peaks as well. We talk about last year, but he was over .400 when he got hurt, and he finished at, what? .306 or there abouts? That means he hit a fair amount below .300 the last weeks of the season to fall that far. And as I mentioned in a different article, he had 19 homers and 23 doubles, but only had 32 RBI's to go with all that slugging percentage. And how does he utilize his speed? He needs to bunt more to loosen up the defense, and he only attempted 10 stolen bases last year. For someone who can do it all, he doesn't seem to want to do it all. He wants the flashy defense and the power numbers, not the bunt singles, the walks, the stolen bases, and all the little things that manufacture runs (you know, all the things that put Rod Carew in the HOF). I am hoping (and rooting) for the complete player we know he can be. Until then, Say Hey, Kid!
  2. Mark G
    Touche'
  3. Mark G
    While I would love to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, it scares me to think we have 3 or 4 players who are clear stars, and 9 or 10 who we can't choose between because there is very little discernable difference in overall ability. (which is what we are starting our BP with) I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but in the same way we would be playing the wrong player if we judge him overly strong, we won't play him enough if we judge him weaker than he may turn out to be. I guess I may be one of those folks who would rather be wrong and own it, than play it safe and never know. But, then, my job doesn't depend on it, does it? I will just face a lot of I told you so's on TD.
  4. Mark G
    I understood every word you said all the way through problem to have. Just kidding...............sort of. Understood; not convinced. Especially if Kepler tests higher than Arraez. In the end, options to choose from, to me at least, comes in the off season and spring training. Yea, yea, spring training was short this year, so let's extend it into April and let the teams have 28 players, then reduce it. But by May, I want to have chosen. And utilized. For better or worse, we will know our players by then. Play the best where they play the best..............oh, you know what I mean.
  5. Mark G
    Agreed. I would only lament that on this club the winners are never declared. They spend multiple seasons "competing" for the different positions, but no one is ever declared the winner and, therefore, starter. Having said that, I know that Kepler, Sano, and before this year Donaldson played the majority of the time at right, 1st, and 3rd. Even Simmons played a lot of SS. But how many games? We treat our position starters like we treat our pitching starters, and our role players like like our relief pitchers. Can't work anyone too hard; we might hurt them. We had one pitcher with more than 125 innings (counting JB's time with Toronto), and one player with more than 500 at bats (3 if you go all the way to total plate appearances). One was Donaldson, so hopefully Buck will take on that total, the other 2 were Polanco and Sano. With a healthy Kirilloff (hopefully), will Sano still get his at bats? Will Kirilloff get them? If so, where? OF or 1st base? Where does Arraez get his? We know Correa will get his, and Polanco will get his. Buck if he is healthy. Who else, and where will they play? Or will we just shuffle the other 10 around the field and the batting order as we have in the past? My long winded way of saying I long for the days when you knew who would play and who would sub, or in some cases who would platoon. I didn't use to need a scorecard, and I used to recognize the box scores. Ah, the good old days.
  6. Mark G
    I think all of us can agree with line #2. After that, it would be an interesting debate. In your scenario I can only draw the conclusion that you believe we have 3 everyday players and 10 role players, all of whom would be juggled in and out of the lineup throughout the year competing, as you say, for the other 6 positions in the lineup. Personally, I believe you put your best 9 players in the lineup every day and have bench players who come in as needed for injuries, or just tough pitching match ups where they bench player may have a better look. Earl Weaver would have agreed with me; I have a hunch Rocco is going to agree with you.
  7. Mark G
    Once again I am going to be in the minority here, but Godoy? Really? A 27 year old career minor leaguer with 40 total plate appearances in the majors? 6 for 37 in official at bats? I would rather go back and get Astudillo, at least he played 3 or 4 positions including catcher, makes contact over 90% of the time and had a .270 life time BA. I am somewhat tongue in cheek here, of course, but a minor league waiver claim as one of our 4 bench players? To use where? 3rd catcher? I just can't see it. And, again being a minority voice here, 15 pitchers? On what planet does this team have 15 major league pitchers? We are going to keep minor league pitchers on the roster through April so our major league arms can be brought along nice and slow? That was not tongue in cheek. Larnach needs at bats. He has to start somewhere, either here or AAA. If not here, then St. Paul. And the Gordons, Rookers, Celestino's, and Miranda's need at bats as well to develop into quality players. 4th outfielders and utility players are established players who have played that role before and are not going to be every day players ever. Cave is a good example. Beckam and Robertson as well. Let's not screw with the kids who could someday be good every day players and give them the at bats they need. Start them somewhere, either here or in St. Paul. Keep the veterans who have done this before and are true role players. Just one man's extremely humble opinion.
  8. Mark G
    I really like the gist of it, but I have more faith in Kepler on an on going basis and less faith in Larnach, at least right now. And I am not sure what I think about Rooker just yet. (funny, isn't it, that it is the outfield that is the question; please, Buck, stay healthy) Otherwise, it looks good, doesn't it?
  9. Mark G
    Couldn't agree more. Trying to decide which minor league pitchers should be on the major league roster, whether it be instead of Dobs or not, is frightening. Can any of them start? Or do we try them in the pen? And how many times can we shuffle them back and forth from St. Paul? Where does it end? I remember an old saying "Spahn and Sain, and pray for rain". Do we have more than 2?
  10. Mark G
    The fan in me has goose bumps all over and a @#$% eatin grin on my face. The cynic in me (which has come over time with this FO) has me wondering if this, in the end, will turn out to be a 4 month stint up until the trade deadline. It is, in effect, a one year contract with a player option for two more. If a player like Correa has a contract type year, what are the odds of keeping him? Which would mean a trade if we are out of it. We are all wondering how the Twins suddenly became the destination of choice for a major star. I know I am. And I have to wonder if it is not..........not really. It is a quick stop in a lightning round off season, making Correa a bundle, while reassessing his options as the year goes by. I have a hard time trusting the player to stay anymore than I trust the FO to sign top players to top contracts. But I am going to enjoy the ride as long as it lasts. And I, also, assume more deals are coming; probably a trade or two. I will keep my eyes on Twins Daily.
  11. Mark G
    I couldn't concur more. Listening to Falvey might make me want to buy a used car from him, but it doesn't make me want to buy box seats to a game. Can anyone say they have ever gotten a straight up answer to a straight up question from these 2 (3?) since they came? Make that 4.........JP doesn't give any either, he just punts to the other 3. This is a fan base waiting to get fired up, and the ingredients are out there to make it happen. So, smartest guys in the room, make it happen!!
  12. Mark G
    So, what is next? The boys in the tower clearly feel the pressure to do something, and they are definitely doing...........well, something. Swapping catchers, third basemen, and pitchers, getting somewhat better in one area and less in another, and freeing up payroll in the process. I am honestly not sure if this is part of a grand master plan, or flying by the seat of their collective pants just to keep the fan base interested. And when the smartest guys in the room don't feel they need to share their infinite wisdom with their subjects, this is what we get to do; we get to try to read their minds. A lot of good tries here so far, and I have a hunch a lot more are coming. I definitely come here instead of the papers for info; they (especially the Pioneer Press) are pretty much press secretaries for Falvine, not informers. Personally, I think we are going to make one or two more trades ala the ones we have seen so far, not picking up too much payroll in the process, and counting on prospects to develop. I just don't see dumping one huge free agent contract gone bad only to gamble on another hours/days later. Doesn't seem to be their style. I will be happy to stand corrected, though, if we get someone for the long haul. In the meantime, keep a good thought.....??
  13. Mark G
    We are comparing IKF's last year to Simmons' last year at the plate, not their overall career and potential for bouncing back or regressing. And he rates behind Simmons in defense overall. Not sure why folks are thinking this is an upgrade. Agreed that giving Garver for him is funny; as in strange, not as in ha ha. Unless SS is not where they intend to keep him for long. But then this FO loves players who have no permanent position and pitchers who can't get through a lineup twice, much less three times, so he fits right into their roster.
  14. Mark G
    I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but why not give the pitcher some power back, if you are going to insist he change what may be his rhythm, and give him the decision exactly how fast to make the next pitch. If a hitter steps out of the box, it is his choice and his risk; if the pitcher throws a pitch in that moment.........oh, well. Keeps the game going and puts the hitter on the same plane as the pitcher. The pitcher shouldn't be able to have his foot on the rubber and stare down the hitter for as long as he pleases, and the hitter shouldn't be able to choose the rhythm by going in and out of the box. Once the hitter is in the box and the pitcher is on the rubber, game on. Within a pitch clock, of course, or we are back to square one. Would be fun to watch. And, yes, these changes might just make it necessary to take prospects and stretch them out in the minors so they would have the stamina for the same number of pitches (even more??) in a shorter time span. As someone who is old school myself, I can say from 55 years of watching the game that pitch counts and innings limits have hurt the game overall far more than a pitch clock ever could. Throw the ball.........hit the ball..........catch the ball.........or run like hell until they chase it down. It's a great game, if they would just go out and play it.
  15. Mark G
    If this is the way the Twins work their entire season, it better work or this FO and its manager need to go immediately. Because I believe this is not, nor was ever, something that was thrown upon them without warning; it was a plan from the beginning. Whether or not it was plan A, B, C, or Z, it was thought out as a possibility, and if it becomes the final draft in the end, it better work. And it working with 13 or 14 unproven pitchers in roles that haven't ever been proven over time is..............possible?? I guess, but not bloody likely. Let's hope this is NOT plan A! That must still be out there somewhere.
  16. Mark G
    It sure would be nice to have MG in the lineup every day (or close to it). Here is hoping he stays healthy and on the field; he sounds like he is in a good place. God bless, Mitch.
  17. Mark G
    I know the lions den I may be walking (typing?) into here, and I will take the heat, but there is one premise in the article I just can't agree with which is the part of why talks are stalled (the rest of the article was very informative, and I loved it). I have spent over 20 years of my working life in unions, and I have seen more than enough of the give and take in contract talks, and all of the propaganda out of each side, to say I have never seen a contract impasse yet that is totally one sided. In this case if an outside arbitrator can give it a fresh look and make recommendations, why would the union reject that? We are already at a point where no matter what happens, no one is going to "win" this battle of the wills. Neither side is blameless in the debacle. I have no desire to see baseball hurt itself over when a player can become a free agent or how much of a minimum or maximum a team must spend on payroll. The owners come out ahead in the long haul, and the players make a damn good wage for playing a game. Both sides think they can do better, and are butting heads. Bring in a neutral observer and get it done. But anyone thinking one side or the other is totally to blame has already made up their mind who they are rooting for and will never see the other side. Public sentiment for either side gives them the encouragement to dig in, and all that does is ensure no baseball. To quote a song, "there ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree". Time to make up, boys. If that mean you need a marriage counselor, get one. A divorce is not an option.
  18. Mark G
    Not sure why. I never suggested that he would pitch more than 100 innings in his first season back; I specifically suggested he would fit in on a team that doesn't ask pitchers to pitch too many innings, preferring that the BP take a big part of the load, though a 28 year old might be able to if he makes a full recovery and doesn't try to come back too soon. And while they have made an occasional trade over the years, I was lamenting that it is the exception for this FO, not the rule. The trades for Odo and Maeda were nice, but far more often it is the other way, major leaguers for prospects (and I considered the trade for Maeda a major leaguer for major leagure, as Graterol was already on the major league roster). And if the injury history is the main reason we would hesitate to make a deal like this then we never would have even considered the deal we just gave Buck, so that is a non starter for me. I just feel this would be a nice gamble to take, kind of like the MP deal a few years back, if it wouldn't cost too much in prospects we know we can part with. Maybe it is just the way my mind works, but it isn't confusing to me at all. Sorry if I am not explaining the thought process well.
  19. Mark G
    Throughout the comment section I see two themes: One, the thought that we should not trade prospects for a pitcher who is currently injured. Two, we don't know if this pitcher will pitch much if he comes back from surgery, as he has not pitched many innings since 2018. Both of these thoughts confuse me somewhat. We are more than willing to trade major league players for prospects, year after year after year after year after........sorry, but we don't ever seem to be willing to part with said prospects for major league players. Why? Major league players have already proven themselves to some degree, prospects have not, or they would be major league players. And why do we care about how many innings a pitcher might pitch for a team who loves 4 inning starts and 4 relievers afterward? Seems he would fit right in with our philosophy, wouldn't he? Save him for the stretch, and all that. I guess it strikes me if we aren't willing to make a trade like this, assuming the cost is within reason for a pitcher out for '22, then we are taking the position that we will only use free agency to build on our farm, and assume that the farm will always produce and the free agents will always be worth their signing. How has that worked out so far? In my extremely humble opinion, go for it if the cost is right and take a chance on a true ace, which does not appear to be on the horizon as of right now (hope I am wrong on that). What have we got to lose, except a couple of prospects which may or may not ever be major league players. It is a gamble, but one worth taking at this point in time.
  20. Mark G
    I tend to agree with the article from beginning to end. Having been a teenager when Billy Martin was manager here for a year, I remember the fire baseball used to have and I love that side of Josh, even when it seems silly. He wants to win and gets emotional when things don't go that way; the next generation doesn't seem to have the same fire sometimes. I personally hope we keep him for the last 2 years and rotate him between 3rd and DH enough to keep the fire burning and get him his 500 AB's. We can bring his replacements along in due time, learning from him as they take over.
  21. Mark G
    I know I will be a minority of one here, but when you put a player (hitter?) who only hit, didn't play the field at all the vast majority of his career, against players who not only hit, but were gold glove fielders, or played multiple positions in their career, you diminish the value of the latter. No matter how much we want to keep the good hitters in the game longer and longer, when we equate a hitter who only bats with a player who plays 9 innings a game and faces the risk of injury infinitely more often, which shortens careers (Tony Oliva?) far more often then DH's, we have gone too far. If all Joe Mauer did was hit, never caught all those years, how long would he have stayed in the game and how many hits would he have accrued? Not to mention (but I will) Buxton; how many at bats did he miss from injuries that occurred while fielding? Those are just two of hundreds of examples throughout the history of the game. Again, I know this is not going to go over well, but DH's who played their whole career as DH's, not the Molitors of the game who only finished as such, should be put in a separate category and maybe have a page of their own, but not be put along side the true players. Having said that, I love Big Papi as much as the next guy, and I wish he had stayed here. Great hitter!
  22. Mark G
    I find it hard to agree with the concept that Rocco refusing to use a .300 and .350 OBP hitter in the proper spot in the lineup, if at all some days, as being a reason to rate the hitter lower. If anything, it rates the manager lower. And to say that Arraez is the 7th, 8th, or 9th, best offensive player in this lineup is bizarre to me. Lastly, saying that 2 complete rookies and a guy who played half a season or so, not to mention Kiriloff only seeing a partial season, all rate higher than a proven player such as Arraez is a gamble you are clearly willing to take, but I wouldn't bet MY house mortgage on it. For the right pitcher he has to be considered, even in a package deal. Otherwise, he plays ahead of virtually everyone you mentioned until they prove they are better, which is entirely possible, but not guaranteed.
  23. Mark G
    Wow, I guess I got myself into a firestorm here. I didn't define anything. I simply took the premise of the article, which was we needed quantity as much as we needed quality. Am I missing something here? Didn't Cody put that right in his article? I simply said two things: number one, I don't believe in quantity over quality, I think any team should take the opposite approach. I also said, if I can only have quantity and not necessarily quality I would go for all of his suggestions instead of just one, assuming the price was reasonable. Where that came out so wrong is confusing to me, but I will cede to brighter minds than mine.........I guess...........at least this time...........I guess.
  24. Mark G
    I thought the analogy was quite apropo. I was simply using an example of quantity vs quality in the sense that, as you said, the more you have the better the odds. I have never been a believer in that thought process; I have always thought you should get fewer but better players rather than take the gamble lesser prospects will pan out. I would rather draft higher and fewer than lower and more. In the case of this article, I was only saying that if I couldn't have that, but could only have the quantity side, then go for quantity by picking up all of them instead of only one. I also qualified the thought by going with the articles premise that the price for each would be reasonable; if it isn't, you walk away. Low price trades for pitchers we would have 2 or more years of control over might be the best scenario in the short term. This organization has proven they will not outbid others, whether it be via trade or free agency, so quantity is the next best thing. Wasn't that Cody's premise in his article?
  25. Mark G
    If, as you say, "the Twins need quantity just as much as they need quality", why not make all 3 trades? We have the prospect pool to pull it off if, as you say, the teams feel a lower level price would suffice. Personally, I have never been a quantity over quality guy (see the Vikes trading down to stockpile more draft choices, even if they are lower), but in this case we can only have the one, so let's go for it. I fear, however, the FO isn't in the trade mode right now, but I am more than ready to be wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...