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

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 drjim

  1. drjim
    I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in the second paragraph.
  2. drjim
    Thanks for the feedback. I want to emphasize the minor in minor quibble. It was great work and a very worthwhile thought experiment to consider what an alternative path might have looked like.
  3. drjim
    OK, now that the Nevada results are in, I'll add another thought. Maybe the Republicans will be so terrified of a Trump-Clinton matchup they'll actually do anything Obama wants them to do. Still think Obama goes with a moderate nominee.
  4. drjim
    I think this is fair. I do think the franchise probably needed three years to fully stabilize. I do think if there had been less improvement last year Ryan wouldn't be the GM anymore. I would love to see another step forward this season and then have him kicked up to President of Baseball Ops with a new GM from outside the org brought in. Not an especially likely scenario unfortunately.
  5. drjim
    I absolutely think it's bluster. Still stand by my initial prediction, Obama nominates a very qualified, moderately liberal nominee and after much weeping and gnashing of teeth the nominee is confirmed without a filibuster.
  6. drjim
    I still fail to see how failing to get a nominee confirmed is a win for him.
  7. drjim
    I agree with your analysis on the Illinois Senator, which is why I think a really liberal nominee would be a mistake. No chance he continues to buck his party to support that, it absolutely unifies the opposition. A more moderate nominee splits the party much more effectively and likely still gets confirmed. That strikes me as an actual win-win for Democrats and Obama.
  8. drjim
    My two quibbles here would be I don't think you can just plug in the free agent contracts signed, you have to add a year and some salary. Second, you are operating with perfect hindsight, would be impressive to pull it off similarly in real time.
  9. drjim
    In my mind that money would have been better spent eating money on a trade, taking on a bad contract to acquire a better asset, popping the international spending limits on occasion or pumping money into one year flyers that could get flipped. While I personally don't think signing free agents at the level suggested is the answer, I hope that isn't seen as full agreement in what they did. In addition to not really pursuing the policies I suggested they probably still tied up too much money in middle of the road pitching.
  10. drjim
    This strikes me as a bad idea. Obama has leverage in two areas right now. The first is that there are enough Republicans/conservatives that accept the fact (despite the rhetoric) that the President does get to nominate a judge and that a competent person should be approved. The second area of leverage is that the Republicans face a likely outcome of a Hillary president and perhaps even a flipped Senate. Unless they really want to nuke the Supreme Court via a post-election filibuster that outcome would result in a liberal justice. If Obama follows your plan, he would likely unify the opposition and marginalize the group that would potentially accept a nominee and he would render the second part of his leverage moot. Not getting a liberal justice confirmed is not a win, it is likely a wash between energizing the two bases for the outcoming elections, plus diminishes his personal legacy. Truly splitting the right by nominating a very competent, slightly liberal justice is much more savvy.
  11. drjim
    I think you doth protest too much. And to the second point, I would say they won't rubber stamp a candidate, but if they don't approve a relatively mainstream candidate it is the end of Supreme Court as we know it. I'm not sure they are that radical - yet.
  12. drjim
    He had different incentives in 13 vs. 15, including money. I'm not criticizing the plan per se, very reasonable (if not how I would do it), the contract structure issue is a small quibble.
  13. drjim
    Mid-market team, in the 15-20 range.
  14. drjim
    Not a liar, just a partisan. And perhaps I misread your second line - I thought you were implying the Republicans wouldn't confirm a hypothetical Hillary nominee.
  15. drjim
    The implication was that if Clinton is elected president that the Republicans won't allow her nominee either, even with what they are now saying. That is certainly possible, but if that is the case it would be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it. Probably the logical conclusion of our system. There is a reason almost all president systems have collapsed.
  16. drjim
    Why would Hunter have signed with the Twins in 13? He was going for a title opportunity. My one quibble with the alternative plan offered is that it is a little disingenuous to say they would get free agents to sign elsewhere to sign with the Twins. Wouldn't work that way, good rule of thumb is one more year and 10% increase to annual salary, but that is also a little bit of a minor digression.
  17. drjim
    I'm naive enough to think this isn't the last word.
  18. drjim
    This topic has been beat to death multiple times, but the easy response is that if the Twins were better, even with a higher payroll, Pohlad would be making significantly more money. And I am highly skeptical of any measure that doesn't have the nfl team making the most money, but that is a minor digression.
  19. drjim
    15 wasn't that good, and 13-14 would have been meaningless, especially with the likely consequence of the next two years.
  20. drjim
    Agreed. But who cares in 13-14? And last year he was mediocre and got hurt and will likely be hurt off and on the next two years.
  21. drjim
    The dead money should be at the back end or after the competitive window, not right as it opens up. That, in my mind, is the crux of this debate. Is it worth more wins during years the team is not making the playoffs to have more money tied into diminishing players as the competitive window is opening up? Sanchez is the perfect illustration of why partaking in free agency as aggresively as was suggested is not a great strategy. Doesn't mean you don't sign anyone, but you should be hesitant to increase big money into a player before the team is ready. For the record, this is year they should have went big, but the Twins might also be locked into too many free agent contracts.
  22. drjim
    Sanchez is absolutely valid to have signed, but currently shows the consequence of why signing him would not have been ideal for the franchise.
  23. drjim
    This is such a lame complaint, it would be the same way if the roles were reversed. The best way for Obama to get a Justice through that he wants is for the Democrats to prove that they are likely to win the Presidential election and to show the swing Senators that they are in trouble if they obstruct. But seriously, stop appealing to some greater principle they would drop in a second if it was politically expedient for them to do so.
  24. drjim
    I hope not too, but even more than the money options (eating salary for a better prospect in trade, taking on bad contract to acquire other assets) signing so few flyer arms since 2012 is something that really bothered me about the rebuild.
  25. drjim
    I'll add a couple thoughts on this: 1. Sanchez seems like a bizarre example to cite. He has two years left on his deal on big money and significant health concerns right now. Good enough to keep running out there and pencil in the rotation, but unlikely to be especially good or even make it through the season. Exactly the wrong type of asset to have on the squad right now, as Nolasco (for example) is showing. A few more wins in 13 and 14 would not have been worth the problem right now. 2. The Twins actually did make a run at Buehrle, but the Marlins beat them. I suspect the 4 years was the issue. 3. I generally agree that they were hamstrung a little after 2011, they were locked into players that had significantly devalued, but did have some reason to believe might bounce back - so couldn't trade but also didn't make a ton of sense to replace. They did sign some position players to fill the holes outside of these assets, but they really shot low on the rotation addition (Marquis) and the bullpen flyer, which I thought was a good risk, blew out in spring training (Zumaya). As a side note, I wonder if the Zumaya experiment turned them off from future signings of the same ilk - which was a mistake if true.
×
×
  • Create New...