Jump to content
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
    Two things that stuck out in the article that made me pause; one always makes me pause, the other is relatively new. One, losing proven major league talent for guys who have never seen a major league dugout has always been a problem, not only for the Twins, but for half of MLB. I said this before and I will say it until the cows come home: competitive balance always changes in August, and not for the better. The best players changing hands changes which teams are playoff caliber. And getting nothing but hope in return, no matter how great the hope is, doesn't change that. Which just happens to segue into number two: "there's no reason for this team to hold onto any semblance of respectability" makes a mockery of the competitive balance of MLB if teams go down this road. This is not a tryout camp, it is competitive major league baseball and all 30 teams owe the game, if not the fans, a competitive game to test playoff caliber teams. When one or more fold up tent and begin spring training early, it embarrasses the game itself. Plan for the future, but put your team on the field. That is my sermon for the day.
  2. Mark G
    I think Shoe took responsibility merely by taking the AAA assignment and, at the same time, is attempting to show the Twins that he can still pitch, just not their way. A lot of players would have left and signed a minor league contract with another team, then publicly blamed the team they left once they settled back into a groove. He stuck it out here, and would actually like to pitch again; to me that is taking responsibility as well as explaining why it didn't work out. You know, sometimes the fans deserve to hear these things; they are the ones paying to see the stuff we all saw and they wonder why it all went south. Good luck, Shoe, and don't ever again let a computer tell you how to play baseball.
  3. Mark G
    3 years of control of a lefty reliever who can bridge the gap between the starter and the back end of the bullpen......hmmmm.......and cost effective too......hmmmm....... How is that even a thought process?? Trade him? For a low level prospect? On what planet this side of Jupiter does that make sense? I know, on Jupiter they trade all stars for draft picks, but on what other planet does a trade like that make sense? And no, I am not calling him an all star. But if he can help a bullpen that calls themselves a contender, why can't he help a bullpen that wishes they could call themselves a contender? And did I mention that he is cost effective? I can't believe we are having this conversation. But then, I have spent time on Jupiter, so..........:)
  4. Mark G
    Oh, how I wish you were in our FO.
  5. Mark G
    To be honest, I don't get the point of the horse. And you are correct in your description of what a trade deadline is and who it involves, but it is a form of a test at the same time; a test of the FO's ability to use the assets it has to improve the team via trades, buying and/or selling. Or not making trades just to make them, which is a lot harder to grade since they seldom talk about the trades that were never made. We will only know the right answers years after the test is taken in this case, and it will be a subjective, not an objective scoring system. And I would agree with every point you made prior to the horse. I'm going to have to ponder awhile on the horse.
  6. Mark G
    I say this a little tongue in cheek..........maybe.......; I would agree with everything you just said if the team were also going to lower prices across the board to AAA levels while we watch what would essentially be early spring training tryout games with minor league players. I guess I always thought that was what winter ball and spring training was for, but I could go with you for minor league prices. Again, somewhat tongue in cheek, if I wanted to see the Saints play I would go watch the Saints play. Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying, and it may have to be, but we shouldn't sugar coat it and pretend it is the same; only the names have been changed to protect the worthless. Throw the fans a bone for your incompetence and maybe we won't give up.
  7. Mark G
    Yea, I started watching when I was 11 and they were in the World Series against the Dodgers. Fell in love with it, and have been a fan ever since. And, yea, the '70's sucked, didn't they? As free agency took over, teams stopped making the trades they needed to make to fill holes; they just bought the players instead, and that led to what we see now, I guess. Trades are to fill holes in your major league rosters. The draft fills your farm with prospects. But then, as I said, I lost this debate a long time ago.
  8. Mark G
    I think sometimes folks misunderstand what I am saying when I lament the state of the game today. I truly get the way things ARE being done, I am only suggesting that is not the way they SHOULD be done, entirely from a fans perspective. When my church group buys 75-100 tickets for an August game and takes their kids to see the Twins, they would like to recognize more than half of the players they just paid to see. Because when the Twins replace their major league talent with AAA talent they don't lower their prices to AAA levels, they just assume we will keep coming. I know I have said this before, but I am old enough to remember what trades are supposed to be, at least in the eye of the average fan. It is fun for guys like us to sit and ponder these things, but my friends just want to see players they have grown to like. And if these players have to go, at least get others they can find in the box scores, not on a minor league roster in some city they will never go to. And, as much as I love the Rays, for every TB there is a Detroit or Baltimore that just never seems to get it right. I feel for their fans. I get the way it is; that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Every August the competitive balance changes, and not for the better. And I will never win this debate, so on we go.
  9. Mark G
    Once again, I am in a minority of one (or very close to it), but this is something that is simply foreign to me; clean out the major league roster to fill in the minor league rosters and hope someday......what? That they become our major league roster? The first part of the article even said the return for certain players would give organizational depth in the class A part of the system. From there, I saw maybe one (correct me if I missed something) major league player, and he is recovering fro TJS. Quality ML players require at least some semblance of ML talent in return, along with "prospects" that may or may not ever see a ML dugout. I know I am kicking a dead horse here, but quality ML talent requires more than A or AA.......period. The folks buying the tickets deserve better than that; they always have and they always will. But then, I would never let a computer tell me how to play the game of baseball, so I am really in a minority.
  10. Mark G
    Normally I would never argue this point, but since this is a debate of whether BB is worth superstar money it is worth examining if he is the superstar we might want to make him out to be. The things you talk about are, indeed, exciting to watch or even anticipate, but are they common place? When you look at the numbers, he has 0 triples and 5 stolen bases in 27 games this year. Looking out to his career, he only has 17 triples and only 67 stolen bases in 459 career games. Others with speed like his would have 67 stolen bases in one season. One other stat: this year in 27 games with 10 home runs, he has only 19 RBI's.......again, with 10 home runs. Career: only 191 RBI's for his entire career; never more than 51 in a season. "He can change the game"......yes, he can. But does he? Can and does are not the same, and his stats say he doesn't on a regular basis. He plays great defense, but does not produce runs on a regular basis. His runs scored plus RBI's minus home runs stat is only 355 for his entire career. Even Simmons isn't that far away from that number (pro rating the numbers) and his defense is superb as well, but no one is calling Simmons a superstar. Again, superstar money for can is not the same as superstar money for does. Does requires him to be on the field and not in the trainers room. Until he does, 120 games a year (or more) consistently, I just can't see the superstar money. But others do, so he will get it somewhere. I question if that will be here, however.
  11. Mark G
    I get where you're coming from, but as Forrest Gump would say, fragile is as fragile does......in a nutshell, he appears to be fragile. Twice in recent seasons he has gotten hurt simply running (Forrest never did ); not by crashing into walls, diving for balls, or sliding into bases, just by running. And I have to admit, I am one of the folks who wonder how many other players would have broken a bone getting hit by that pitch, or is he just fragile? There are only so many flukish injuries the same athlete can get before a pattern sets in. And, yes, JD injures himself just running as well, but he isn't in his mid 20's anymore. I guess my point is I don't know if folks are criticizing so much, as they are lamenting his history and wondering, because of said history, if he is worth anywhere near as much as he thinks he is.
  12. Mark G
    Pretty good assessment after the first paragraph. As for the first paragraph.......hmm, how to be polite. As good as Buxton is, yes, when healthy, he is not on the same planet as Rod Carew if you want to go into Twins history. Not only did Rod have the tools, he used them. He could turn a walk into a run better than anyone in the game. Buxton refuses to use his speed to the degree he not only could, but should, anywhere but in the field. He will not bunt, and steals sparingly (as in he could steal 3rd and even home far more often). In his own words, he is "looking to drive the ball", not worry about his average, even though a higher average would put him on base more, putting him in a position to do more with his speed. His athleticism may or may not be unmatched, but his production is far from unparalleled (no, production is not on a per game basis, it is season to season). You have to be on the field to produce; no one has yet to produce from the trainers room. Don't get me wrong; as I said, a good assessment from the 2nd paragraph down, but he has started more than 88 games only once in his career and until he does consistently, year in and year out, the jury will remain out. Doesn't mean I wouldn't sign him, but not for the money he thinks he is worth. Not yet, anyway.
  13. Mark G
    I know this is the equivalent of spitting into the wind, and I am probably showing my age, but you need to get major league talent for Berrios, not AA prospects no matter what number you attach to them. That level of starting pitching in MLB is simply too rare to not get something current in return, especially with a bidding war going on. Talk to a team with a deep bullpen and get a decent arm back, then talk about AA guys.
  14. Mark G
    They would with binding arbitration. That was the whole premise from the beginning. I guess the whole debate boils down to each ones definition of "fair" when we talk about a fair wage. Maybe that is what makes it fun to debate.
  15. Mark G
    Not to argue too much with you, but 56 years ago my father bought a 3 bedroom house with a basement and garage in a very nice neighborhood for 19,500 dollars. So when we look at the salaries of the era 50 years ago, remember what it bought compared to today (that same house today is over 300,000). They made a comfortable living playing a game they would have killed to play at that level. If we are going to feel bad for players, feel bad for the minor leaguers who never see any real money; yet they keep playing the game they love to play. You can't suppress a salary that was never supposed to be that high to begin with. Just my two cents worth.
  16. Mark G
    Ah, but wouldn't it be nice if it was?
  17. Mark G
    I know I am in the minority on this one (lots of others too), but I would submit it did work - for the fans. Fair is a relative term, and is in the eye of the beholder, but baseball was never meant to be anything but a game. The players need to be paid, and as I have said in previous comments, I would surely keep binding arbitration to protect their interests, but in terms of playing where ever you want, whenever you want, that is the premise you are starting with. I am starting with the premise that the organization drafts, pays a signing bonus, grooms a player at considerable expense (the minor league system in any MLB organization is anything but cheap), and when a player hits his prime and the organization is finally reaping the rewards the player gets to just walk away to the highest bidder? As I said, fair is in the eye of the beholder and that somehow doesn't fit in my definition. But at the end of the day, I am thinking of the fans......you know, the people who pay the bills? They have a right to follow a team they are paying to see and actually recognize the players on the field, and if a player is so unhappy with that he can't play for them, he doesn't have to play. You can't compare this to any other industry that normal people work in; other industries don't have anti trust exemptions that keep the industry going and thriving. So, I would submit it would work as long as the binding arbitration was a part of the system that wasn't there before. The competitive balance would be better, and the fans would actually feel a part of the game again. But then, I prefer the NL play (hate the DH), so I know how much of a minority I am in. And, no, that doesn't mean I don't like Cruz as much as the next guy. I just happen to be old enough to remember both eras, and the first was far better overall for the fans. Feel free to yell at me now.
  18. Mark G
    No such thing. No one is forcing a player to sign with the team that drafts him; he can sit out and wait for the next draft. If he signs and doesn't like the team, on one is forcing him to play baseball anymore. But if he signs, takes the signing bonus, takes the training in the minor leagues, and makes it to the majors, the contract should protect the team as much as it protects the player. It worked for 100 years........:)
  19. Mark G
    I agree. That is why if I was President-Governor-Mayor-Dog Catcher and Judge Judy all rolled into one, I would eliminate free agency altogether. Keep arbitration for a fair wage for the players, but the team that drafts, gives a signing bonus, grooms, and ultimately produces a major league player should reap the benefits of that for the long haul. And the fans benefit just as much, when they can actually follow a team of players they know and watched come up.Trades will always be a part of the game, but buying a team ends the concept of it being a game, and the fans become the ultimate losers.
  20. Mark G
    I know this is a pipe dream, and I also know that only my generation might remember the days, but I would do away with the entire process and go back to the days where the teams could control their rosters indefinitely. I can understand arbitration, but free agency, in my extremely humble opinion, has harmed the sport significantly. What casual fan can keep track of a team from year to year without a scorecard? The players stopped being just that, players, when they found out they could hire their gun (bat? Arm?) to the highest bidder and retire from life before 40. And the people who pay to see them play have no connection to most of them, as they turn over year to year throughout our lifetimes. Remember the 60's Twins? Darn right. Remember the 2000's Twins? Yea, neither do I. When you look at a team and see 20 different players than you did even 5 years ago, the fans lose their attachment and, at least a lot of them, lose the desire to come watch. Unless they are winning 101 games, then it is the chic place to be; otherwise, you see crowds like you have this year. Anyway, the game was better from the fans point of view when they knew their team, and the fans pay the bills; it is all about the fans. The day the game became all about the players it stopped being a game, which is what the fans want to see. My sermon for the day.
  21. Mark G
    I agree with much of what you are saying, especially the part about Morneau droning on....and on....and on......but I digress. The one I listen to every time he comes on, and speaks his mind as well, is Jim Kaat; he is not afraid to give an honest critique on the home team. How that guy is not in the Hall of Fame is beyond my ability to understand. Morneau may very well be right about being a tweak or two away, but 4 of the pieces that would make them competitive are free agents after next year, and if we have determined either we can't/won't pay them or they just don't want to sign now and play the market, we have to trade them while we can get something in return. And right now, the FO thinks that info is on a need to know basis and we don't need to know, so until the 30th comes and goes, who knows if we will try for that tweak ourselves, or sell it to another team. Personally, I would buy this July, not sell, and see if we can mitigate the loss of some of the free agents. That would put us in a position to go for it next year. But I am usually in the minority, so I won't hold my breath. And you are right; baseball needs a salary cap. Any sport with free agency needs a lid or it loses its competitive balance.
  22. Mark G
    I couldn't agree more about the computers (I hate them), and how they over or under rate particular players. I couldn't disagree with you more about Simmons defensive play. Having watched for about 55 years and seeing some pretty good and pretty bad infielders, I consider myself at least somewhat capable of spotting a good one, and Simmons is a good one. The mistakes he makes are actually a matter of him being so good he just assumes he will make every play and loses a little focus every once in a while with routine plays. His bat has been quiet this year, but his glove speaks for itself in my extremely humble opinion. Wish we could keep him around. (and we won 101 games on 307 homeruns, not on any defensive player we had other than possibly Buxton) But I do respect your opinion as well, so thanks for the give and take.
  23. Mark G
    Not sure what you mean by higher, if he is the highest rated SS in the league according to all the computers I love to hate so much. Pretty tough to get higher than highest, unless defense is not what you were referring to. Personally, I can live with a .220 or .230 hitting SS if they are gold glove caliber but, as I said, I am in the minority a lot. For over 100 years the National League has done it that way and they still don't feel the need for a DH, so it must not be all bad. If we are starting over, let him go; if we are revving up for another run, I want his glove.
  24. Mark G
    Personally, I have never been in the camp that thought Rosario was a poor defensive left fielder, but then I am in a minority much of the time on a lot of things. I also cannot understand the push to dump Simmons, and not just because of this article; I have seen enough of him this season to want to re-sign him if he is dumb enough to come back to this squad, and leave Polanco at second. Kiriloff at first long term seems the way to go, and I think Kepler will come back from injuries and improve again. I think injuries have hurt the defensive side of the game, but it will improve as guys get healthy. Of course, with this front office's love for the July sale, we may never get the chance to find out with some of them. At this point, not even they know what this team will look like in August.
  25. Mark G
    Spot on! Personally, I always thought they had that person in Molitor, but the computer gamesters thought otherwise. Right now, I would ask Cruz to consider a bench coach position when he is done playing. Of course, so might a lot of other teams.
×
×
  • Create New...