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
    Oh oh oh yeah? Well I say the changes are going to bring us to the next level. That 82-80 team is going 83-79 this year, and we'll LIKE IT! 🤭
  2. Mark G
    "All three players were playing at or near an All-Star level in the first half, and there weren’t suitable replacements on the roster." I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but if there were suitable replacements, would we be paying 55 mil for 3 players? I doubt there are too many teams that have suitable replacements for 3 players of that caliber. It is the next tier of talent that needs to step up if and/or when they go down (or any other player we count on as much as we do those three), and that is going to test our depth once again. It is all going to come down to depth. Will the next tier come through? I, for one, am hopeful and skeptical at the same time; I hope they prove me right on the former and make me eat the latter. 😏
  3. Mark G
    Yes! Better look out, though; I took a lot of arrows back when I lobbied tor Urshela to stay, and I doubt any minds have changed since. 😉 As for Baldelli, I don't understand anything he does. 😏
  4. Mark G
    I took it from Cody's article above, point #4. The Pohlad's hoping to get more like 1.8 billion, the more realistic figure might be around 1.5 billion, and with Ishbia dropping out leading to possible adjustments in the asking price or the sale conditions. I just got the impression from the article itself that some haggling might be taking place, either now or eventually. But, as always, I can be educated. 😉
  5. Mark G
    These are interesting things to watch from an outsider's perspective. The same owners who spend anywhere from 100 mil to 200 mil a year just on players salaries, much less the rest of the cost of running the franchise, will haggle over the same 100 - 200 mil in the "value" of the team in a sale. The same numbers that are just part of doing business year to year are suddenly the most important numbers there are when it comes to exiting the business. I know it is probably silly, but I just have to chuckle a little while it plays out. 🤭 And I am not just picking on the Pohlads; it seems that all pro sports franchises do the same thing. It is fascinating to watch billionaires try to haggle with other billionaires over a couple of hundred mil while the majority of the fans can't afford to come to the games anyway. That is why it is so much fun to watch. And so frustrating at the same time.
  6. Mark G
    Isn't this the debate that keeps coming back over and over again? Baby the arm to prevent injuries as much as possible; as such, you never build up the arm to go any deeper than a prototype long reliever. Build up the arm, and risk the arm injuries you are trying to avoid........has anyone won that debate yet? 🙃 Okay, the training wheels are off (are our training wheels ever off?). Let the kid show what he has; if he is still so fragile he can't handle the load, find out now and work with him on becoming the best reliever he can be. But a major league starter has got to pitch a lot more than 92 innings a season, so build him up or convert him. I can already feel the arrows coming. 😉
  7. Mark G
    You are right, money was never the issue, bad management was. My fear with GT is his age; he would be 84 by the time any sale would go through and who takes over if/when he dies or becomes unable? How long before he has to turn over the reins, and to who (whom?)
  8. Mark G
    I tend to agree, although I would hold out for a Baby Ruth bar. 😉
  9. Mark G
    Again, just my opinion, but how can the word have any meaning at all if the definition changes every generation or two?
  10. Mark G
    I am a little lost about the 1993 and stopping watching.......anyway, that is on me; I am probably just not reading it properly. As for the benchmark, the benchmark for me began in 1965 when I first fell in love with baseball and started to listen to games with a transistor radio under my pillow at night (I went through a crap ton of batteries every summer). We were comparing pitchers then to decades past, and we still are with each generation (talk to my 31 year old son about pitching). 🤭 Pitching today seems to rely on velocity and movement; throw the ball hard enough for the movement to miss the bat, and count on the hitter to swing at pitches out of the zone. The problem is that hitters figure this out pretty quick, so you are out of the game just as quick as they figure it out. I go back to my original question: is an ace simply the best pitcher in any given rotation, or is there a finite criteria. If it is the former, then every team has an ace. If it is the latter, then we have to compare every pitcher to that criteria, and why would that change over the years? Like I said before, there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.
  11. Mark G
    Door number three. 🤭
  12. Mark G
    Anything? Or everything? Don't confuse the two. It definitely is not everything, or the only thing, but it sure is anything.
  13. Mark G
    You are right, it is definitely not the only thing to consider. But, in this mans extremely humble opinion, it is one thing that makes or breaks the definition. I guess, to me, it boils down to what an "ace" is. Is it just the best pitcher on each teams staff, or is there a finite criteria to meet? There is no right or wrong answer on that question, just each persons opinion.
  14. Mark G
    I love Joe, and we miss him when he is out, that's for sure. Having said that, I do have an old school idea of what an "ace" is: a stud; a workhorse. Averaging just below 6 innings a start tells me he either doesn't have the stamina to be that stud, or the brass doesn't trust him the 4th time through a line up, which is what an ace would do. Again, this is not disparaging Joe; I think he is a wonderful #2 or 3 starter, depending on who else is around him. I hope he is healthy for the full year, and proves me as wrong as I have ever been. But an ace has to do better than less than 6 innings a game, no matter how good his stats are in those 6 or less innings. Again, old school, and I can feel the arrows already. 😉 And Eric, if spring training is the most exciting time of the year to you, what does October do for you? 😇
  15. Mark G
    We had Mientkiewicz, Morneau, and Molitor at first base (you get the pattern, right?) Since then, who has played there? How about we just go with the pattern, it you know what I mean, and give the job to Miranda? We have tempted fate long enough. 😄
  16. Mark G
    What’s the Twins' Payroll Situation, and Do the Pohlads Care? I remember the old adage "it's not that I don't care, it's just........well, actually, I don't care". What do you think, the former? Or the latter? 😏
  17. Mark G
    Is anybody else's head spinning? 😳
  18. Mark G
    Can we go back more than 40 years and include Blyleven and Kaat? (especially because Blyleven2011 brought it up). 🤭
  19. Mark G
    Technically true, but I guess I was thinking about something more than a AAA catcher and the always wonderful cash considerations. I'm sure I am missing something, but you know what I mean. 😏
  20. Mark G
    I alluded to this in another comment section, but I still wonder if this has ever been a "strategy", or has it just turned out this way because the only players left we could afford were the ones who didn't get a chair in the free agent version of musical chairs. If it were a strategy, wouldn't trades have been a part of the process? Or is that still to come? I think the jury is still out right now.
  21. Mark G
    Oh, contraire, my well meaning friend. They fired that last one (Molitor) with 2 years left on his contract. And what made it funny, was they wouldn't let the new FO fire him with one year left because they wanted to honor the contract. Then two years later they don't honor the extension they just gave him. Hmm, go figure.
  22. Mark G
    There are theories that where you hit in the line up are based on your strengths and the strengths of the players around you. I might hit you 2nd in the lineup because I have an Aaron Judge hitting 3rd and they are more afraid of him than they are of you, and you will get better pitches to hit with him "protecting" you, as they say. Or I might bat you 4th because you have more than just power, you consistently drive in runs. Or leadoff, because you have a good OBP and some speed to boot. Or sometimes they take a pretty good hitter and put him 9th to protect the lead off hitter, etc. Regular lineups are designed to get the most out of the line up as a whole, not just match ups against an individual pitcher, especially in an era where the starter doesn't go much more than 4 2/3ds - at most 6 innings. But again, just a theory, although a time tested one.
  23. Mark G
    It is working in more ways than that. It is the latest craze in electing relievers to the HOF as well. 😏
  24. Mark G
    It may turn out that the final roster will put these limitations on how Rocco maneuvers through the game, but was it a thought process? Or did it just fall that way because they waited so long and were left with who they finally signed? Somehow I can't help but feel it was the latter.
  25. Mark G
    Someone correct me if I am misremembering, but I remember Castro was not an All Star; he was a replacement pick for CC when he went down. I hope I am not disparaging him, but I never considered him an All Star, nor the team MVP. Having said all of that, I want to keep him and use him in the utility role he seems suited for, not as a regular first baseman. He has earned his contract and is still valuable, if not most valuable.
×
×
  • Create New...