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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by bird

  1. bird
    Texas is interesting. As an organization, they probably are responsible for initially signing as many players now out there on various rosters as any organization in baseball. The fact that so many of them are on the rosters of other teams now instead of on their own invites questions.
  2. bird
    Who signed Willingham?
  3. bird
    And Nick, you didn't even mention one of their smartest moves, which was Terry Francona. If he brings only one experience to the table successfully here, finding a good manager wouldn't be the last thing on my list. Good point by Parker on the Twin's critical deficiency in thinking regarding platooning. A major weakness of Ryan/Gardy/Paulie for sure. Free Agency has been used sparingly by Cleveland, more sparingly than by the Twins in reality. Hope this tendency makes its way over with Falvey. If you look at Cleveland's minor league system right now, it's clear they are doing things right, although, with any team, luck and timing are not inconsequential factors. For example, Naquin was the 14th pick, but the second best college position player on the board after Zunino. Before anyone rips the Twins by using this as an example, you can be sure that no GM in baseball would give up Buxton for Naquin today.
  4. bird
    English laid out to make an incredible catch in CF. You must have missed that?
  5. bird
    You are incorrect in isolating the risk decision regarding international signings to Smith's desk. If it had been entirely up to Smith, Sano would not have happened. But I generally agree that Smith was a risk-taker and Ryan was not. We share hope about Falvey. One of the first things he will do is to isolate the Twin's historical talent evaluation decisions from other contributing factors to the failings. It is my opinion, based among other things on a detailed analysis of the talent originally acquired by each team and either retained on their own 40-man roster or otherwise now occupying a spot on another team's 40-man roster, that Falvey will conclude that the organization is actually pretty good at identifying and procuring talent. He'll quickly turn his attention to the actual problems.
  6. bird
    I admit to an obsession with combating that dogged obsession of yours and others to paint a false picture of things. You aren't obsessed about crediting Smith. It's all about discrediting Ryan. It's actually unfair in different ways to both men. They spent big because it was Sano, Mike. No odd coincidence involved in any way whatsoever. Wander Javier probably garnered similar conviction from the scouting staff and therefore was signed at what constitutes a greater organizational risk than Sano represented, and this was not done under Smith's "watch". The point I have repeatedly made is that the GM's role in all of this is being overplayed, often for the sole purpose of getting in another dig at Ryan. So let's have a truce. You guys give up your obsession at blaming Ryan by crediting Smith, and I'll give up responding with a very accurate description of how a whole lot of people should get the credit and why both Smith and Ryan are practically bit players in the scheme of things. If Wander Javier turns out to be a stud, and you start to obsess about crediting Ryan for signing him (now THAT'S funny!), I'm gonna be there.
  7. bird
    Every single one of the scouts assigned to the international draft had more influence about both who should be signed and for how much than Billy Smith. And anyone who thinks they should all be fired is frightfully ignorant about the Twin's comparative success in the international arena. Smith's influence on the international effort, in truth, began much earlier than his short and disastrous tenure as GM. He, along with Andy MacPhail and Jim Pohlad, waged a long battle with Carl Pohlad before Carl finally capitulated and approved a massive budget increase that allowed the organization to finally build the necessary infrastructure of facilities and staff to build relationships and compete for talent in the D.R. This initiative took years, but they now have a beachhead there. Smith was a huge part of building this, and is still leaving his prints in this effort in very positive ways. The most striking recent evidence is the new joint facilities there, and anyone familiar with how the organization works will tell you that Billy Smith has been one of the people at the center of this undertaking.
  8. bird
    Take heart, h2oface. Over the years, there have been a lot of fans who have needed glasses when it comes to the early stages of a player's big league career. We don't know which of these guys will end up more like Torii Hunter versus Marty Cordova, but it's not drinking koolaid to be optimistic, for example that Berrios will get it figured out any more than it might have been to excuse Frank Viola or Brad Radke for a shaky start. Or Brian Dozier. Or Gary Gaetti, especially defensively. Or Byron Buxton. Kepler. Sano. There's been plenty of evidence beyond the raw numbers that are telling discerning baseball people that Buxton and Sano still have the makings of future stardom. That's reality. In short, I think it's reaonable to be optimistic that most of the players you mentioned with fulfill expectations eventually, and I think it's reasonable to be optimistic about this next wave too, as long as we remember they don't quite have the elite pedigree of Buxton or Sano.
  9. bird
    I give Billy Smith credit for being one of a number of people who advocated in favor of opening up the wallet and taking the risk on Sano. Contrary to your myth, he wasn't even the most adamant voice, or the most influential. I doubt he even offered an opinion about Kepler, Polanco, or any of the others. He never saw Kepler play a single inning of baseball, and wouldn't know what to make of it if he did. Howard Norsetter had multiple times more influence on that decision, financial and otherwise, than Smith. I admire Billy Smith for who he is and what he's accomplished for the organization. I wish you and others gave him the credit he deserves for the things he's actually done instead of making up your own incredibly false history in an opaque attempt to continue to smear Ryan.
  10. bird
    Great start to the AFL for Gordon and Garver, and not bad for Melotakis and English.
  11. bird
    {The Twins did great (Sano, Polanco, Romero, Kepler, Jorge, etc.) with international free agents during the Bill Smith time.} That Bill Smith was a genius. Hiring and overseeing the international scouts, and then getting out there and evaluating those guys personally, and getting all those handlers to warm up to him personally after shoving the local scouts out of the way, and doing 100% of the negotiating with every one of these guys' agents. I mean, just getting the three dozen pesky people who were involved in international scouting and who followed these guys for years to step aside so he could perform his magic. Pure genius.
  12. bird
    What thrylos failed to do was to compare results to other teams. It's hardly instructive to make lists of failures and successes like that. I can do that for any one of the 30 teams and it looks exactly like that list. If anyone doubts this, just look at a recent look-back to the 2005 draft authored by John Sickles of the site minorleaguebaseball. He dug up his list of the Top 50 pitching prospects from that draft, which was regarded as an excellent one. Here are some facts: 1. Exactly 25 of the 50 most-coveted pitchers from that draft busted. 2. Of the busts, 13 simply busted, and 12 were injury busts. 3. Among this elite list of 50, the Twins garnered 5 selections. That's 10%. No other team had that many. 4. Only 5 other teams had more than 2 names on the list. 5. The Twins results matched (exceeded, actually) the overall results. Of the 5, 3 were successful: Crain, Baker, and Perkins. One was an injury bust (Harben) and one turned out to be a head case (JD Durbin) The point is simply this: making a list, good or bad, with zero context and attempting to sell it as "proof" is at best inferior analysis and at worst disingenuous. Even a factual, accurate comparison like what Sickles allows us to do neither proves or disproves an argument that the Twins are good or bad at the draft. It proves that the draft is really hard, and that's about it. BTW, many people believe that Sickles would run circles around the knuckleheads the Twins have out there scouting pitchers. He had Crain (#6), Durbin (#19) and Baker (#30) ahead of Verlander (#34) and Perkins (#35). It's a bit of a crapshoot, people.
  13. bird
    Where is this dislike of Gonsalves? What I see is a very well-reasoned spectrum of opinion on what his ceiling might be. Some, myself included, question whether projecting him as a #1-2 starter isn't overly optimistic. The other end of the spectrum seems to be a #3-4 starter, and they're looking at the same numbers, perhaps also considering opinions of professionals who have scouted him. I think the comments simply reflect an attempt to talk people down a bit from these loftier #1-2 projections that don't reconcile with his numbers when viewed in greater detail, and commenters have been pretty specific about what would need to change in order for them to agree with projecting him as ace material. Where'd the MadBum comp come from? Did a pro make that comparison, or was this something that just got fired over the internet by fans? If we had a bet going here with odds given, based on Seth's ranking, on which of the five delivers the most career production, I'd probably take a shot at Jay, Kiriloff, Romero, Gordon, and Gonsalves as the order. As Seth said, an argument could be made for pretty much any order with this group.
  14. bird
    While it's certainly a red flag, I think it's premature to stick a fork in Stewart based on his MiLB K rates. It would be nice to get more descriptive observations of his performances. Is he more hittable than you'd like because he throws a lot of mistake pitches currently? Does his slider come in a little flat? Are they laying off an offering that he struggles to throw across the plate? Is he still needing to perfect a particular pitch? Perhaps the scouts still like him because they see correctable issues rather than indications of physical limitations. Maybe Falvey's experiences will translate into some worthwhile discoveries for guys like Stewart. Let's hope so.
  15. bird
    Didn't most experts view Kohl Stewart's upside as more likely a #2? I recall that a majority of them thought there was a dropoff after the first three picks. And still, consensus was he was the best pitcher to select as the fourth pick and that it was a very solid pick by the Twins. Clint Frazier was selected next. But imagine the uproar had the Twins passed on a stud pitcher with Stewart's pedigree in favor of another toolsy outfielder.
  16. bird
    So, how does Kohl Stewart compare to Mickey Mantle?
  17. bird
    Yeah, I think I read the transcript of that chat, and as I recall, Law labeled both Wright and Faedo as guys that project to be #2 starters. I'm cringing at the thought that maybe no one emerges as a consensus staff ace. If that were the case, I can clearly see logic in taking the best position player if he projects to be a Benintendo type or something along those more predictable lines. It's gonna be interesting.
  18. bird
    Let's re-think our statement, shall we? Over the TEN YEAR period from 2003 through 2012, not a single prospect picked where Harrison was picked in the supplemental round has ever made it to MLB. Not one. Harrison is one of two who still have any shot at all. Of the TEN PROSPECTS selected on either side of Harrison's #50 slot in 2011, only one of those prospects has made it to MLB. I didn't count them, but I'm wiiling to bet that two-thirds of all players drafted PRIOR to the 50th pick in all those ten drafts will never see a day in MLB. So thrylos, THIS is a full testament to the inability of virtually every single team in baseball to identify, draft, and develop talent. What do you have as a response to these comparative facts? Or maybe you didn't intend to single out the Twins?
  19. bird
    It's an interesting collection of names for many reasons, good and bad. Harrison is looking to be a minor bust. As usual, most of these guys are terribly long shots, but Landa and Cedaroth aren't dealing with chronic physical problems and should be considered real prospects. In looking at Ramirez and De Jesus, they appear to be guys the Twins picked up after they were glossed over at an earlier age, and it made me wonder if we're seeing the last remnants of Ryan's "let's just work harder and dig deeper" influence on things. Probably nothing to that, but it crossed my mind.
  20. bird
    I'd guess historically the consensus would have generally agreed with this and capably supported their argument anecdotally. It's probably reasonable to question whether this premium is shrinking more recently, and whether a smaller number of trades involve a meaningful premium given the more sophisticated analysis going on in MLB's front offices.
  21. bird
    Play the numbers game with what you got, I say. For 7 spots, we have over 25 players mentioned here (I'll mention Van Steensel and Peterson to avoid lying) who have thrown a baseball at AA and above. Granted, some of the lesser talents among them (O'Rourke, Dean?) have had their cups of coffee with (cough) mixed results. Only 1 out of 4 of these guys needs to step up and give us something. A couple already have. I'd have no reservation in taking the risk that we can field a MLB-quality bullpen from this group, but with one very important caveat: which of these guys has a chance to be a shutdown reliever? We can plug in the Kintzlers for now, but we need three better than him to become a contending team. I don't see a lot of options for that among this group, and even those guys are unproven. Burdi, Chargois, and who else?
  22. bird
    I've been wondering about your first point, Mike. I suppose, with more FO people involved in these decisions in most organizations, we're less likely to witness some rogue GM with his objectivity in his back pocket and his ego on his sleeve pull the trigger out of desperation at the deadline. Darn that objective analysis and all that meddlesome arithmetic. Things could go from bleak to fairly rosy pretty quickly. We just can't count on it. If we recall, people were lambasting the club (Ryan) for starting 2016 without Duffey and Berrios in the rotation. It's not at all beyond the realm of possibility a few guys really step up and surprise us early on, just like it shouldn't have been a surprise to see Duffey and Berrios struggle this year. Personally, I'm all out of optimism, and don't foresee that changing with this manager and pitching coach.
  23. bird
    Yeah, I was in favor of a Santana deadline trade too, IF it involved a clear overpay. You're right, they should listen to offers this winter, but in the absence of a lopsided offer, I'd be inclined to take the gamble that Santana retains value and that others step up so that they could then shop him in July and maybe score a desperation offer. Even a favorable winter trade won't turn the tide for this team, so maybe he becomes part of a rotation for us that is at least 2/5ths adequate to start the year. And let's face it, unless three of these promising pitching prospects pan out during the course of 2017 and very early 2018, this organization is in deep doo doo. There aren't enough high-ceiling position players in the high minors who could possibly burst onto the scene and create a surplus for trade purposes. Other than Polanco/Dozier, about the only other (very remote) possibility is with Park/Vargas/Palka. I think when the new regime does its asset evaluation of the organization, it will conclude that beyond Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Dozier, its most mineable value is pitching prospects interspersed throughout the minors. The good news is this asset base is what they need above all else to correct the problem with the big club. I'm not suggesting they have a stunning treasure in pitching prospects, but it's probably better than 2/3rd of the clubs and might get better with the first pick in the draft. The bad news is that barring a streak of good karma, we're just not likely to see three out of Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, Jay, et al show up at spring training ready to give the team even mid-rotation production in 2017.
  24. bird
    Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future. The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is with the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me. From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.
  25. bird
    The pitching talent is better than the pitching itself. What does that tell us? Taking a top-level view, I'd suggest it's unreasonable to think we have the tradable assets to net more than one starter that is equal to Santana in expected production or equal to Berrios in talent. My discipline regarding selling is to ALWAYS seek opportunities to sell from surplus. However, we lack a surplus of acceptable starting options, at least for now. My discipline is also to NEVER sell from an area of deficiency. So, I'm going to pencil in just one outsider. That means I need to "count on" perhaps two or three of the veterans to fill spots. I therefore retain Santana, Gibson, Santiago, and Hughes to start the season. None of them are part of my future. I don't care about their contract amounts. All will be traded or otherwise disposed of IF my system produces MLB-ready replacements, and not before. The final spot, and hopefully final spots, go to whomever my brand new field coaches tell me they want on the roster. If they tell me we have four guys more likely to produce wins over the four guys above, we're moving the veterans at first opportunity. I'm of the mindset that, if you're not good enough for my rotation, you're probably not good enough for my bullpen. I'm starting to think we're about to have some viable solutions in the pen. Like I said earlier, I suspect the talent surpasses the results, and part of that has to do with inexperience, part of it might be overuse, part is on the coaches and managers. What I like about the situation is we have numbers, lots of talent on the cusp for the bullpen. Guys like Hildenberger, Burdi, Reed to go with Chargois, Taylor, and Pressly. So, if Duffey, Mejia, Berrios, or any of the other youngsters don't cut it as starters, I'd strongly consider demoting them to AAA unless they clearly win a BP spot. So, since I'm not winning in 2017 anyway, I'm looking for this to be a year in which as many as three of May, Berrios, Mejia, Gonsalves, Jay, Rosario, Jorge, or others perform well enough to allow me to move veteran pitchers and maybe even surplus relievers at the trade deadline.
×
×
  • Create New...