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
    Yes. Though Kepler doesn't have the best arm, would probably be better in lf.
  2. drjim
    He could be a high level utility guy if not traded. Just don't think he'll be an everyday SS.
  3. drjim
    I generally agree. I think this is the year that excuse should be put completely to bed. 2 full years in the system is enough.
  4. drjim
    A journeyman might be a success for the individual but that would be a miss for the team. I would personally say that if starts for the Twins for 6 years at a #4 starter level (or pitches better for fewer years and blows out) or becomes at least a setupan in the pen, that would be the minimum needed to call it a successful pick.
  5. drjim
    That I won't be able to produce without more work than I'm able to do. But certainly a fair point, it is possible those opportunities didn't exist.
  6. drjim
    I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in the second paragraph.
  7. 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.
  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
    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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. drjim
    15 wasn't that good, and 13-14 would have been meaningless, especially with the likely consequence of the next two years.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. drjim
    I don't think the Twins are purposefully bad, if for no other reason than it has cost them a boatload of money. I"m sure they would love to put a better team out there. And your 2011 trade deadline moves hypothetical is flawed. They were only 6 games back on July 31 and had been playing pretty good ball for 2 months - based on the history of the team it would have been especially aggressive to blow it up at that point.
  20. drjim
    Forgot about Kazmir. I'll give the Tribe credit for signing him after 2 years off.
  21. drjim
    And I agree. I accept one of Correia, but they should have signed another to go with Pelfrey (who in hindsight wasn't a terrible signing that year, the problem was the extension).
  22. drjim
    I don't agree that Pelfrey had 0% chance. I thought it was an acceptable risk to take at the time and he actually had an OK season, actually pretty close to what Feldman did. They should have went with another - and at the time they said they actually offered more money for Joe Saunders.
  23. drjim
    And realistically Liriano wasn't coming back.
  24. drjim
    Feldman was the one guy who (really) worked out. Young didn't pitch in the majors and Marcum blew out in a couple of months, as I'm sure the Twins realized he would. I remember the big debate over Marcum and it was all silly because of the medicals. So yes, Twins did not sign the one upside guy that would have been a good signing - though I'm skeptical they would have turned him into Arrieta either.
  25. drjim
    You can probable read anything you want to and we all look forward to the responses. But I do think it is possible they won't really have such a need that would make overpaying for a free agent a good use of resources. Much more likely we see money being applied to signing the young guys to extensions.
×
×
  • Create New...