Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

drjim

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,759

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 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 drjim

  1. drjim
    I think the other factor is they really don't want to lock up multiple 3-5 year contracts at inflated FA prices as they need to start paying the emerging core, as well as make decisions on Mauer and Dozier, who they may want to keep. They would potentially go bigger on a 1-2 year deal if it presents itself, but those are a little more rare, and for it to be a difference maker it often has to be a vet that is chasing a really good chance at a ring, not sure the Twins can sell that *quite* yet.
  2. drjim
    I suspect the biggest difference will be a willingness to trade prospects. Don't think the free agent approach will change all that much.
  3. drjim
    Cleveland traded great prospects for Andrew Miller as recently as last season. Houston does not sign high end starting pitcher FAs. So I'm not even sure what your references are trying to show. It is certainly possible that Falvey will operate exactly like Terry Ryan did, but I wouldn't bet on it. Comparing what the Twins did in the middle of 7 terrible to mediocre seasons to what franchises that were on the cusp of winning a World Series will give you a skewed perspective. And on another note - the Twins don't have the prospects to trade for a great pitcher. This can be seen as an excuse or a reality, probably depends on what bias is being brought to the table.
  4. drjim
    Getting Nathan seems like a pretty impressive scouting find. He was a solid reliever for the Giants, but really took a leap when he became a Twin. That is the type of move that takes a team to the next level.
  5. drjim
    Last year, for one season, if you pro-rate his starts, and don't think innings pitched means anything, Rich Hill is definitely a borderline ace.
  6. drjim
    If you added Gordon and Gonsalves, still wouldn't be enough.
  7. drjim
    That happens, especially when drafting pitchers high, but I also think it is really damning to the strategy of taking so many relievers those years. Reduced the chances that a starter might put it together. Keuchel was a 7th round pick.
  8. drjim
    And the majority of that value would be captured just as easily by going year to year. I think you can guarantee a certain amount of money for the right to have some options, that is usually the equation in early pitcher extensions.
  9. drjim
    That's certainly my thought. A pitcher can emerge from multiple areas. It is, of course, not especially easy to pull this off, but I look at where the Twins are vs where the Astros were the last two years and that's the significant difference.
  10. drjim
    This seems correct. Twins should be able to get at least two option years. But I also agree the numbers are about right.
  11. drjim
    The Twins are basically Dallas Keuchel away from where Houston was in 2015/16, with a little less asset portfolio in the minors. To really make a leap, the front office needs to unearth a really good starter, then they should have a little better farm to supplement for 2019, and some payroll space to add vets on short FA deals.
  12. drjim
    Maybe in October. The problem is you got to warm guys up, and it can't be done after the second batter reaches and before the next batter hits. Hard to plan and you can't have a reliever warm up multiple times each game. There is a reason relievers slot into roles throughout the season. That said, they just need to add a couple of good relievers, no real reason to pay a closer premium, and line everyone up.
  13. drjim
    It doesn't? It was in a thread re-visiting the Dozier trade in the context of discussing that trade, right? How else should that comment be interpreted? I understand the point you are making, but to constantly hammer the same generalities with the same points over and over again when specific moves are being discussed that don't especially apply to those points, or, more accurately, show that the point being pushed is not as simple to execute as it is to complain about. I don't see that as all that productive (and it is perhaps even something else). I like the theoretical and strategic and big picture as much as anyone, but those moves also have to happen in the real world opportunities that actually present themselves, in real trade and free agent markets, with actual players that are available.
  14. drjim
    Also not happening by making a bad trade.
  15. drjim
    Not sure how trading Dozier for another (likely) backend starter would have helped this situation.
  16. drjim
    These actions can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
  17. drjim
    The more I think about, the less it makes sense to lock up Sano. It is not clear he'll bring anything to the table on the defensive side in 4 years, and his style really is closer than we might want to admit to being unplayable. I like to think he'll move his k and bb rates in the right direction, but he could easily go the other way and be an albatross. Not sure how much I'd gamble on that equation. And he is not going to give a discount. It doesn't kill a team to capture value through his arb years and then let him walk.
  18. drjim
    It was a pretty impressive hold that paid off, especially considering how badly they needed (and still need) pitching. More than a few people on this board would have done Dozier straight up for DeLeon. Does show you can have a price, have it met or face the consequences and live to see another day.
  19. drjim
    The failure of the RF experiment was large part on Sano, that always struck me as obvious. And I agree that it should have served more of a red flag at the time, but it is always easier to blame management and defend the star. (Which isn't to say moving him to RF was a good idea, but a committed player would have made it much less a fiasco).
  20. drjim
    I appreciate the efforts put in to compare to other similar deals, but this is way, way light for Sano to consider. Sano and Buxton are going to be different ballgames for extensions this offseason. Berrios/Polanco/Kepler/Rosario and to a lesser extent Dozier are the ones who will follow the normal rules (if the Twins decide to extend).
  21. drjim
    And again, if he says to no 3 years, let him walk. Twins can pivot on that, Gordon should be ready to roll opening day in 2019.
  22. drjim
    Because it is not clear he can get that many more years in the open market. He might want to stay with the Twins. And he might want to lock up a year before free agency. I don't think the Twins will get a discount on AAV, but might get the right amount of years.
  23. drjim
    That may be true. I'm thinking a RH DH, but that is also a luxury item compared to bullpen upgrades. Also, solid bats are generally available at the deadline for minimal prospect cost if you take on the salary (another reason to keep some flexibility).
  24. drjim
    Twins were at $108 last season. It would be pretty disappointing if they more or less stand firm on payroll considering the unexpected success last season (and additional revenue gained) and the expectation to compete this year. But I also don't expect them to go crazy and lock into multiple big money contracts for several years, they do need some flexibility to lock up the emerging core.
  25. drjim
    I see it more in the $120 range, enough to add a starter, a reliever or two, and perhaps a cheap vet bat. With that they'll have some space to add money in season and it would also set them up with some flexibility going forward to lock up most of the young core.
×
×
  • Create New...