Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

bird

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,413

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by bird

  1. bird
    I'd just rather they make the buy moves and the trades in the off-season. Buyers lack leverage at the deadline and are more prone to make bad moves out of desperation. Find a sucker at the deadline and move, say, Kepler to make room for Kirilloff. For smart teams, this is what the farm system is for. But for sure, I'd like them to make big moves. Moving Graterol creates a shortage. Rooker is redundant. That risk must be factored in.
  2. bird
    My belief is that smart teams are amassing prospect capital as a "sustainability" strategy. Houston, for example, isn't lifting its foot off the gas, probably because strategically, they see a day when one or more of Altuve at $29M and then Bregman, Correa, Springer (already at $12M) need to be moved to make room for a new but cheaper star. So yes, smart teams are hoarding prospects to some extent. Boston is an exception, right? Teams who show up in the MLB power rankings (saw the Twins at #11 recently in one) AND who show up in the farm team rankings have a huge advantage if they manage the assets adroitly. Of course, it's good to be high on the revenue rankings too. Damn Yankees have a trifecta going.
  3. bird
    You said the Twins could have traded just about every prospect other than Berrios and not missed out on anything. I'm just saying it's preposterous to think that the returns would have consistently favored the Twins, regardless of which of those prospects you throw a dart at and move. Of course there's such a thing as a surplus of prospects at a given position. And I'd not argue to avoid trading from that surplus opportunistically. In fact I very much encourage it. I was thrilled when they moved their 6th best SS prospect, Palacios, for Odorizzi. Perfect trade. I don't think of Lewis or Javier as surplus to one another. Their ETA's are two years apart for starters, and both can move to another position. Gordon? Yes, he is expendable to me, with Schoop and Polanco ahead of him and Arraez nipping at his heels.
  4. bird
    I believe I mis-read your earlier comment as one that included your own opinion on Gordon. Guess we'll have to scrounge up a different way for me to take five bucks off of you. When it comes down to it, I always go back to the day of the decision. Right now, it looks like they should possibly be glad Kolek and Aitkin didn't fall to them and that they picked Gordon instead of Alex Jackson, a catcher many were disappointed they didn't grab. So, out of the top 6 guys selected, only one of whom was actually available, the decision doesn't look so bad. Too bad Rodon and possibly Schwarber didn't fall to them, we'll see. OTOH, they can join a half dozen teams in hitting themselves upside the head for passing on a couple of pitchers that went a couple of picks later. And some think they proved their ineptitude by passing on Trea Turner who went eight players later. The truth is that its wasted thought to ponder that stuff. Nothing gets "proven" in those specific comparisons. No one back then was saying Freeland should unquestionably go that early or that a team passing on Nola was incompetent. That type of criticism is the food of convenient retrospect. Overhype or not, Gordon looks to have been a quality decision IMO. Like with all early picks in the first round, you hope you're not part of the unlucky 30% who picked a flamer. Comparatively speaking, the Twins have a pretty solid 10-year record, believe it or not.
  5. bird
    You're suggesting they plug the two into the lineup though, right? Sounds like a bet to me. And a smart one. Safe too. Nice combo. Bringing in real talent that is proven from the outside through either FA or trade is what almost all of us have hoped they'd do. Depending on the decision, one might find an argument about how smart or safe any such move would be. Kinda what we do here. Any way you cut it, they've said their gonna bet on "the core" making strides in 2019, correct?
  6. bird
    I don't know, Van, Gonzo was what, #96 one year? So maybe he nets slightly better, like someone's Addison Reed from 2017? Teams give up a prospect like this at the deadline in exchange for a good, established relief pitcher, don't they? These guys don't get you a decent rotation piece or a 2 WAR position player with control benefits. It took TWO premier prospects to land Pressly. Maciel started out the previous year as Houston's #5 prospect, which is what Gonzo is to the Twins now. And they had to add Alcala, who might just end up being as good as Pressly or better in his own right. I think I want my club to be adding prospects at the deadline, not the other way around. Off-season, trade prospects who are redundant, sure.
  7. bird
    I wouldn't know, but I'd sure plunk down a $5 bet that you, right now, are under-hyping him.
  8. bird
    What would they have gotten for Rogers? Polanco? Kepler? So that's an utterly silly claim. I think you're going to be dead wrong about a dozen times real quick-like. And sorry, I think some commenters become delusional on BOTH sides of an argument to trade a prospect or not. I used Gordon as an example of how preposterous it is for any of us to 1) think we can really be at all certain about a prospect's ceiling when he's 21 and getting his feet wet at AA, or to 2) conclude that we have a good idea about what kind of MLB talent a prospect like Gordon can attract. It's hard enough for the pros to gauge this. But my point is simply this: when you trade a big-time prospect with Gordon's clear athletic talents, you're doing so knowing there can be a wide variance of future outcomes regarding his skill development. Even when his minor league performance has gone from super encouraging to abysmal, like Gordon's has, there is a much narrower variance in his trade value. This risk should be acknowledged and managed, IMO. The way I would manage it is to trade from positional surplus so that when you DO lose on a trade it hurts you less because you have another option, and to avoid trades involving multiple high-profile prospects so as to decrease your chances of giving up the next Tatis Jr. for the next James Shields. That's all I'm saying.
  9. bird
    I'd re-phrase this to say they're basing their hope about contending in 2019 on Buxton and Sano finally aligning their incredible talent with their production for a full season. They've been very clear about this, and it's the smart bet for 2019.
  10. bird
    Precisely the point. The pros like him better than a lot of us.
  11. bird
    Even a worse idea most of the time. Increase your odds of giving up one or more major league talents, and again, most likely for a fairly marginal incremental improvement. I'm not saying you don't do it. You do. But trade from surplus, not from areas of future need.
  12. bird
    Fans over-hyped Gonsalves. It's doubtful he's viewed as a disappointment by the organization but rather as a step up from typical for the #110 selection. Gordon was over-hyped by the fans, and now he's probably under-hyped. It's too early for the Twins to conclude enough about Rortvedt, let alone us as fans. There's a ways to go for him, and for Jeffers too. Did we think all that much of Garver at the same stage? I honestly an't remember.
  13. bird
    To me, the consideration about moving a minor league asset has to be about him becoming redundant, about having a better alternative at the same stage of development. It can't be about timing his trade value and then timing his trade, because you'll often get meager returns at the moment of opportunity, whether the guy flames out or becomes a star. Buyers overpay at the trade deadline most of the time, I think. If I'm GM, I'll dangle Gordon or Rooker because I have another better alternative close to the majors. I don't let Gonsalves go. Not until I have a couple other better alternatives than him at the cusp in AAA. Maybe they do though. If Rooker reaches "peak value" early this year, I'd much prefer to deal Austin or Cron for prospects at the deadline than to deal Rooker for two months of someone's Fernando Rodney.
  14. bird
    I think there's a massive difference between peak fan hype and peak value, Vanimal, and I think we tend to conflate the two things without really having a very solid idea about how much real trade value these prospects have. Think of it this way: Gonsalves was picked after 109 other guys were selected. You're right in saying 9 times out of 10 these players picked from. say #40 and after flame out, and that's the case in 2013, where maybe 5 of the 70 players selected in front of Gonsalves look to be amounting to anything. But even with his surprising success, and even if one could somehow ascertain his peak minor league value, what kind of MLB talent do you think he fetches? Probably a Blake Parker. Is it worth giving up on a gamble like Gonsalves for that?
  15. bird
    Let's not lose sight of the reality that the Twins already have lots of capable eyes on every one of their AAA and AA prospects. You and I may need to see them in MLB to gather information, but the organization does not. The Perez decision is not sensible on the surface, we all know that. Right or wrong, they have a reason for making the move. We just don't know what it is. Something tells me that they're concerned about Mejia's durability, they're concerned about Gonsaves making the final adjustments to be reliable making the final jump, they're concerned about Thorpe's readiness, and concerned about Littell's stuff perhaps. Wells and Graterol are new to AA. Romero is a better bullpen piece maybe? We'll see. Maybe the Perez move isn't as stupid as we think it is.
  16. bird
    It's a wee bit early to declare a winner. But it's always going to make me uneasy when a GM trades from an area of shortage. Falvey's made a couple of confounding moves, that's for sure. I'll be paying close attention as to how this decision pans out, and the perplexing Perez decision too.
  17. bird
    For a couple months of Zach Friggin' Duke I thought a team would give up a heckuva lot more than a B grade starter like De Jong and a C grade guy like Costello. Stupid Twins.
  18. bird
    It appears that the TD list is going to deviate from that of some of the other publishers more than at any other time I can remember, which is cool. For example, Sickles appears to be overlooking some of the 20 names you're about to unveil, because he has: Stewart #10 (B-) De Jong #11 (B-) Balazovic #14 (B-) These three are just behind Thorpe at #9 and his B grade, and just ahead of Alcala, Littell, and Enlow, who also make his Top 20 and received B- grades. He also has Arraez and Maciel on his Top 20. Something tells me that your list may be the better one.
  19. bird
    You can't back your opinion up with anything remotely credible, can you? An opposite opinion at least can be supported with example after example of expenditures made by this FO to build out development staff, technologies, and other infrastructure. All enthusiastically supported by ownership. And it wasn't the first time Jim Pohlad championed rather than resisted investments in development. He was solidly behind the initiative to build a state-of-the-art facility in the DR for example.
  20. bird
    Nicely put. Attempts to put a blame bullseye on one thing or one person, such as ownership, development staff, or the prospect, are shallow and simplistic efforts. We just don't know what we're talking about. I like that Stewart credits people, holds himself accountable, and sees the value of the perspectives and data provided by the new pitch tracking technology. Tom's timeline theory makes sense to me. Stewart mentioned Rapsody in particular. This technology was still in beta testing in 2016. He probably first saw the contraption in spring training a couple of years ago, maybe wasn't a beneficiary of it before last year. This doesn't pertain to Stewart, but a lot of these prospects probably struggle with challenges outside of baseball that slow or derail progress. We're simply not going to hear about what problems players have in their home lives, or with mental health struggles, especially anxiety and depression, with addiction, or with adjusting culturally away from familiar supports. Maybe we should be slower in making judgments about the causes of uneven progress on the part of these prospects. And especially pitchers, for the reasons you suggest.
  21. bird
    Yeah, my guess is that his extended struggles to convert his considerable talent into effective skills has been a function of both his maturity and imperfect coaching. I wonder how much these newer tech tools like Rapsodo are gong to change things, for Stewart and lots of other pitching prospects league-wide. I'm excited about what Stewart's comments hint at with regard to Falvey's overhaul of the development process. He may not give the organization an advantage, but it sounds like maybe we're done being at a disadvantage regarding pitcher development. Great post here by jokin. And another fabulous article by Mr. Froemming.
  22. bird
    Yes, it would be nice to be a fly on the wall and in particular hear what they think about Gonsalves, Romero, Stewart, and Thorpe in particular, and to know if they possibly have a higher opinion, like the pundits do, of De Jong and to a lesser degree Littell, than what most commenters on TD have. They must believe that one or more of those first four have a chance to be impactful future mainstays. I just don't buy all this silliness that the only reason they don't sign Keuchel or somebody is because they're cheap, or they're afraid to fail, or that they don't want to win. I buy that they have a different and higher opinion about some of the internal options than most fans do.
  23. bird
    I might think accusing them of hubris and getting cute with their calculations. But not fear. I disagreed with the tactic too.
  24. bird
    This does not describe Falvey. Might you be misconstruing prudent decisions with fear? With a lack of will to compete? I call bull, my friend.
  25. bird
    Okay. Now put yourself in the driver seat. What are you doing to avoid IF's? Are you going to DFA Sano and Buxton and Pineda ad Castro and Reed and Hildenberger and Mejia and...? How is telling you that they are placing a big bet on all these guys a CYA move or a sidestep? It's one thing for people to opine that Falvey should take certain, specific actions. For example, to make a bid for Machado, where others might argue against such a move on the basis of it as a baseball decision. I just think people are being extremely simplistic with all these generalizations and disparagement that they "don't want to win" because they don't take the actions one wants them to take. As for building a bullpen via cobbling versus acquisition of proven players? We may prefer he do the latter (I do), but he's pointing to an example that illustrates that not all good pens are put together the same way. Your last two sentences don't have any value.
×
×
  • Create New...