ThePuck
-
Posts
3,257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by ThePuck
-
I get the reasoning, but for me...I'm not that big of a fan of Bailey's. Not that I wouldn't want him, not that he hasn't become good, but I wouldn't give up our shiny new #4 overall pick for him even if we could. Your revised offer I'd be fine with, but not sure the Reds would do it.
-
Stewart can't be traded yet, but hypothetically...I hope not. I'm pretty high on Stewart.
-
Yes, those likely would have been the best three teams, but if still aligned as Al East and Al West, one wonders if our record would have been the same. From 2002- 2010, with the exception of 2007 (which boggles the mind with the talent on that team) we have dominated our division. A winning record each year but 2007 against the AL Central. With the exception of 2007, I don't think there was more than 4 times where a team in our division had a better record against us than we did against them. Why is that? IMO, we just had better talent. 2002: 50-25, 2003: 43-33, 2004:46-30, 2005: 40-35, 2006: 41-35, 2008: 43-30, 2009: 46-27, 2010: 47-25. We were also helped by interleague most of those years. One wonders if under the old way, we would have seen the playoffs in any of those years?
-
If you read the post I responded to, your I believe, and what I said, the only thing I was talking about was the loss of Edwin Jackson and how they'll replace him. The Shields/Myers trade I'm not going to get into again...I've debated that enough. Some think it was a good idea, some think it wasn't. Some are sure it didn't work out, some think it worked out fine. No minds getting changed there, and since it's not about our team, it's not worth the hassle.
-
it's all good. we're all on the same page now. :-)
-
That only gives them one year of control on him. When Shields was traded, he had two years of control and he's a much better pitcher.
-
He's a free agent in 2015, so he can be gone after 2014 if they don't re-sign him
-
I'm saying they have arms on the brink to help cushion the loss of Santana. Now, on top of that, as late as early August, they had 5 players who had a combined OPS of 500 points lower than it was just the year before. With the turnaround some of those guys had as the end (living up to what they were capable of all year), I expect that will continue and, with the addition of Ventura for a full season and Zimmer probably mid-season, I think they will be fine.
-
Wait, I'm obscuring an argument I wasn't even making in the first place? I said that they shouldn't be compared, and now I'm doing something different to obscure the argument? You want me to debate an argument that I not only didn't make, but I made a point of saying shouldn't even be an argument. Well, you're going to continue, so how did Epstein do as a GM? Well, he brought in key pieces to get the supposed cursed Red Sox over the hump to win a W Series while playing in a division with the big bad Yankees (Ortiz, Schilling, Millar and Francona to manage), then he was able to keep to team together and get pieces in place for another W Series championships a few years later. In fact the Boston team now, the one who is favored to go to the W Series, is the team he had a huge part in. Epstein has had more success when it comes right down to why they play...to win it all. AGAIN though, he had a LOT of funds available, and he spent available funds, so, really, there is no comparison. As far as with the Cubs, it doesn't matter if Epstein is the talker, he's not the GM. We hear Magic Johnson talk all the time, the Dodgers GM is pretty quiet, but he's still GM.
-
Your point, whatever that is, is all over the place. Going to try and figure it out here. What does Epstein's previous success (or lack thereof) in the international FA market have to do with what the Cubs GM (not Epstein) is doing now? The aggressiveness is what is being lauded, the aggressiveness. We have no idea how successful this year's aggressiveness in the international FA market by the Cubs will turn out for another 5 years or so. Or do you? As far as the moves being made by HOYER, what does that have to do with what Epstein did in Boston when he put final pieces in place for a W Series Championship and later a 2nd W Series Championship a few years later? Again, you argument is all over the place...your point vague. I think you're trying to do an I told you so to someone that you believe you have a case for, but barring that I still don't know why some continue to compare. There is no comparison. There certainly is no comparison when talking about success as a GM between Epstein and Ryan...but now they don't even have the same position. Need to start comparing HOYER to RYAN.
-
Epstein and his management team hadn't worked for the Cubs before being hired in 2011 like Ryan had and, therefore, didn't contribute to the problems he inherited when he took over like Ryan had. They are a different market, and a different league...and, of course, the aforementioned fact he isn't even the GM. It's my recollection that while some did like some of the approaches the Cubs have instituted, that focus was more on their aggressiveness in the international market this year, with some love for getting FAs that could be used as assets later on. Seems to be more love around here for the way the As, Cards and Rays do things than for the way the Cubs do thing, as a whole.
-
If you have a whole team of replacement level players (0.0 WAR), they are expected to win 52 games (some mention 48 wins). The more players you can get into the positive WAR side, the better chance you have of doing better. Not only that, but getting a quality starting pitcher may have a trickle down effect on the WAR of bullpen members (less wear, better quality). If a player has to play out of his normal position, let's say a 2B has to play shortstop, because he's the best option at shortstop, his WAR is likely affected (because of the defense part); however, if you get a proper shortstop in there, that likely improves the WAR of the shortstop position and, with the move back to 2B, the WAR of the player previously out of position. Makes no sense to not go after as many quality players as possible because it's not just their WAR you take into account, but the effect having a player like that may effect other players WAR as well.
-
Ah, I should have understood that. My bad.
-
I wish we had a #3 starter who carried an ERA of 3.00 and a FIP of 3.24. That would be fantastic! Just because Ryu is a #3 on the Dodgers, I'm not sure he's actually just a #3.
-
There seems to be an unusual obsession on Theo Epstein around here. He is not the gm of the cubs. Why his words keep getting compared to Ryan's is baffling. In any event, whatever the cubs are doing is whatever they are doing. Nothing at all to do with the twins.
-
Having a big time ace helps save the bullpen which will rest them and help us in all the other games. On top of that , in your hypothetical, if we won all his starts that would mean we only need around 60 wins coming from the starts of the other four. The winning all his starts scenario wouldn't happen though. In any event, an ace is very valuable and that value extends past his own starts
-
Nobody is advocating that. I've never heard anyone come close to saying that. People who advocate spending more want players signed that can help the team win.
-
KC has Zimmer coming and Ventura has already shown up. Nice if they keep Santana, but they'll be fine if he leaves.
-
Ryan had multiple chances to sign Hunter. Smith can't be the one blamed for Hunter leaving. The time to try to sign an impending FA of your own isn't two months before he becomes a FA. It's at least the offseason before a player plays his last season before becoming a FA. Smith had no shot to sign Hunter. Smith also had to trade Santana, because Santana made it clear he wasn't going to sign...but Ryan probably could have signed him before 2007 or before to a longer contract extension than the one he did. The other contract you mentioned that the Twins did were done by Smith.
-
Would you be against the idea of Sano, Rosario, May and Kepler/Harrison for Price deal?
-
The could sign Cano and try and trade Profar or Kinsler. Kinsler would be harder to trade, but still... Cano is an upgrade at 2B. Tigers had Cabrera at 1B, Fielder was available, they got Fielder anyway..even with Vmart coming back this year and getting out from behind the plate. Some teams are always looking to improve wherever they can...whenever they can.
-
We don't have the Metrodome financial issues anymore, so while it's a decent excuse for how things were run his first time around, not sure how it applies now....other to say we can't base his history of transactions on his previous time as GM because the financial landscape is different. That's fine and dandy, but he has yet to adjust to the new money available...or so it seems. It seems that way because he considers the Willingham deal a huge deal. So, yeah, there's more money available...but having available money and actually spending the available money are two different things entirely. In any event, this thread is about trading prospects. The question is, since we won't pay for quality FAs, and we have no real tradable talent on the MLB roster, how does a team get proven quality MLB pitching unless they are willing to trade some of that depth we have in the farm...depth, mind you, that hasn't proven a thing yet at the major league level...depth no one knows for sure how they'll work out.
-
While he did spend give Hunter, Mauer and Santana contracts, none of them were for big money (as it pertains to baseball contracts)...all of them were for less than an average 10M a year. He made an offer to Hunter in August 2007 that he knew Hunter would turn down after not working a deal in the offseason prior to 2007, but that was mostly for show...not that he wouldn't have been happy if Hunter lost his mind and took it when he knew he could likely get more years somewhere else.
-
I have thought about it, often over the years, and I concluded that double plays often get started by people who regularly put balls in play on a team that gets a lot of people on-base. Detroit, Tampa Bay, LAA and Boston are in the top 4 in the AL in GiDP. They are also the top 4 in OBP. It's not a coincidence, yet it's considered a negative stat when it's mostly just a product of getting a lot of people on base. We were 11th in OBP, that helps a lot in the GiDP category, but then we were 2nd in Ks. Me, personally, I'd rather get a lot of people on base...let the GiDPs happen on their rare occurance. In the end, even the teams with the most GiDP still do so at less than 3% of their PAs. It's a stat people get worked up over for no reason and, again, just a product of having people on base combined with putting a ball in play. Leading the league in Ks is way, way worse than leading in GiDP, both from a team standpoint and a player standpoint.
-
The real problem with the contraction threat is that our owner was all for it and the Commissioner's team (Brewers) is the team that would have benefited the most from the Twins being contracted.