Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

bird

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,413

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 bird

  1. bird
    We could dig up comments from 3 years ago adamantly claiming the Twins were inherently incapable of scouting and developing middle infielders. This year, there have been fervent opinions expressed about how woefully inept the Twins are at scouting and developing high-velocity pitchers. I'm betting that catchers are the next category.
  2. bird
    "Who are the other two pigs in the photo with Don Trump?" -- Carly Fiorino
  3. bird
    This waning popularity has been most welcome for us doily collectors.
  4. bird
    No question about that. SI did pick them to win the WS.
  5. bird
    I wonder how many games out of the hunt we'd be without May dominating the 8th inning night after night. Not sure that hasn't been a really solid decision. I also cringe about whether we'll get a decent or a horrific start from Hughes, Milone, Pelfry and even Gibson. However, the "futility" that you find so unbearable and seem to blame on poor decisions? Are you cutting the FO ANY slack? Santana cheated us out of better than half a season. Nolasco was respectable for awhile and then went down for months. Hughes missed almost two months. Meyer pooped his pants. Pelf was out for awhile and now Milone has joined the injury list.... Despite all that, The Twins rotation has been middle-of-the-pack ( #16 in MLB) at 4.19ERA. Cleveland, everyone's favorite coming in to the season, is 4.00ERA. That's not all that much better than the Twins and the best in the division. CWS is .04 better right now than the Twins at 4.14. You might recall that, this spring, many wished the Twin's decision-makers measured up to the smarter guys at KC (4.39ERA) and Detroit (4.83ERA). Exactly how does this support the notion that the decision-making of our FO has been as deplorable as you suggest?
  6. bird
    Be sure to study the success rates of your various options.
  7. bird
    I won't attack the writer's credentials, but look at that face! Kidding, glunn. Seriously, I think the writer is taking a rather un-nuanced stance here. To the writer, nothing is muddled. Because, you see, he's put the numbers on HIS side. He did the arithmetic, and got a handle on all the "gaps in projectability". He mastered the "swings in variation". He adroitly computed the "correlations between cost and value" and eliminated all those pesky "soft factors". I'm sorry, but I think this is a bunch of gobbledygook (sic). If I were his Little League coach, I'd throw this precocious kid out in right field regardless of how talented he was and make him repeatedly shout the phrase "it IS a muddle" until his mom came out of the stands to beat me with her cell phone.
  8. bird
    Shambles may be a bit harsh, but the larger problem is that it would be practically miraculous for this rotation to get us through a playoff series, even with the venerable Ricky Nolasco on board. I agree with Dr. River. Our best chances to even win the WC are tied to having the same guys performing well enough to keep us in the game, and hoping Perkins, May, Jepsen, and Fien are enough at the end. Oh, and hoping the bats are at optimal production. Cleveland worries me.
  9. bird
    Yeah, I think you could be totally right about that. I guess my thinking is we're not going deep in the playoffs anytime soon without both a catcher who is superior both defensively and offensively to Suzuki (who's a perfect back-up catcher) and at least one more frontline starter. Our best trade chips for acquiring those are Plouffe and Dozier. I 'm with you on making it a steep asking price. Maybe Wieters as a free agent? But what are the chances....
  10. bird
    I don't think it's hating on Dozier to view him as a trade chip with great potential. I'd be cool with taking a chance on Polanco in 2016 if Dozier could net us a young catcher, maybe a Swihart type, or a young stud who projects as a front-line starter who's a year away. I haven't lost all hope for Danny Santana to re-emerge, but I could see being content with Escobar as a place-holder for Gordon for two seasons. Gordon has a chance to be special. Wander Javier is an uncertainty, but he'll be fun to follow like we did Sano.
  11. bird
    I'd like to see a response to this, an example that refutes this. I'd also like to hear why timing should be ignored as a factor in signing fewer, more elite free agents. And an acknowledgement that injury risks and contract lengths should be a factor. Under the premise of this thread, would the argument call for passing on Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana in favor of a single Top 30 pitcher? What would our season look like if that pitcher was Darvish? Signing Kazmir instead of Santana? Sure. Calling the Nolasco contract a bad decision? Within our rights. Disagreeing with the Hughes extension? Why not? Hating the Santana signing? Understandable. People can and have made good points in discussing these, even if some were only doing so in hindsight. But arguing that it would have been better two years ago, or even last off-seaon, to spend $35 million on some phantom ace (Price?) and retrospectively a productive second guy (Lewis?) I'm not buying it, even IF I could take the misguided leap and assume an ace would have signed here a year or two ago. This coming off-season might be different because of the timing, and who knows, maybe the Twins will begin to look like an attractive place to pitch. And we won't be dealing with hindsight.
  12. bird
    Guilty as charged here. Have been a bad fan all season. Still am pessimistic that Mauer, Dozier, Plouffe, and Hunter are good enough. Still am pessimistic that Hicks, Buxton, Sano, and Rosario are ready enough. Still don't think Ryan did enough to fix the BP at the break to get the team over the hump. Still worry that LAA, Cleveland, Houston, and Texas all finish with a better record. But my lord is this fun!
  13. bird
    An opinion that it would have been "easy" to sign an ace two years ago lacks all credibility if it's not backed by a few examples, right? The "money talks" mantra is an empty phrase unless it's supported. Can anyone identify a starter from 2, 3, or 4 years ago who ranked among the Top 30 that season who then signed in the off-season with a team that had just lost 90 games? How about just a sub-.500 team? Buehler?
  14. bird
    It appears you really meant to put out a thread to air a beef about Santana and Nolasco. Not sure why it's disguised as a discussion about the merits of signing an ace vs. three mid rotation guys. I feel mislead.
  15. bird
    Is this at all relevant to your premise though? If the Twins had signed Darvish, who was more readily described as an ace, would this have been a good signing because it was signing a big gun, or a bad signing because he has had much less impact than Hughes, Nolasco, or Santana. By the way, how can you argue that these three haven't had ANY real effect on bringing the Twins to this point? That doesn't compute.
  16. bird
    Can we at least stipulate a couple of things when we debate the ace vs. #2-3 starter (Hughes and Nolasco) question? First, let's agree that fans need to accept that it's fair for the team to operate under an annual budget. Let's arbitrarily set it reasonably high, say $125? Second, let's acknowledge that the 6th or 8th year of a contract is equally impactful as the 1st or 3rd years, and therefore fair game to scrutiny, even though it requires speculation regarding its merit. For example, most of us probably consider the Mauer contract to be bad more because of the final 4 years of it than because of the value proposition to-date.
  17. bird
    I'm confused about what your buddy is saying. Is he saying it was a good idea at the time to sign Darvish and Lewis as opposed to a couple of "mid rotation" guys like Hughes and Santana?
  18. bird
    A few surprising names here for me. Accepting the premise that they're all invited because they show above average aptitude, we're being told Condeelis and Lombana are better than their stats. Cavaness, Kihle, and Perez surprised me too for some reason. That's good news.
  19. bird
    Love me some outfield defense.
  20. bird
    Fourth!!
  21. bird
    yes
  22. bird
    I do. Naturally.
  23. bird
    Their current one scares the hell out of THEM.
  24. bird
    Cleveland worries me.
  25. bird
    That's a massive assumption on your part that they would step in and help the Twins right now by performing better than Hunter, or Escobar, or any one else you could mention that would sit on the bench while Kepler and Polanco "helped". What would actually be "pretty outrageous" is to sit virtually anyone in the current lineup in favor of either of these two, since neither can pitch or catch.
×
×
  • Create New...