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
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. bird
    Speak for yourself. Never mind, you did.
  5. bird
    Yeah, I agree 100% with jimmer and with this. We need three starting OFs who play smarter than Rosario does right now. Smarter overall play, better fundamentally, specially defensively, more disciplined at the plate. We can maybe count on some improvement from Rosario, but probably just enough to make him an excellent 4th OF. Not sure they have anyone in the minors who will fit that "better than Rosario" bill within the next year or so.
  6. bird
    And he's quite loveable.
  7. bird
    E-Town faces long odds with their young players against that veteran group the Cardinals have put together at Johnson City. You see, most of the players, as you'd guess, have birth years of 1994 and 1995. For example. the Cards have 9 '94 guys and 8 '95 guys, including their 10th rounder from Minnesota who was born early in '95. The Twins also have 17 guys here. The Cards have twice as many older players, guys born before '94 (10) than the Twins (5). On the young side, the Cards have 3 '96 guys, the Twins 6, and the Cards have 2 '97 guys while the Twins have 3.
  8. bird
    that explains everything.....
  9. bird
    So typical of the Cardinals to start a college player in the Appalachian League and have him feast on younger competition instead of challenging him right away in A Ball.
  10. bird
    Me personally? I guess I rely on what the couch scouts can tell me about the real scouting reports and field staff reports, and then remind myself constantly that a high percentage of even the top dozen or so prospects from every draft and international signing class will eventually flame out or succumb to injury or sin. And right now, I'd say it's a safe bet to say no one in A ball is a future ace for the Twins. There probably aren't 30 of those guys in all of the minor leagues right now, let alone in A ball for the Twins.
  11. bird
    An expectation that Wells has a decent shot as a reliever and is a long shot as a starter is probably a good way to think about it, don't you think? Guys are lights out all the time as Low A prospects. Think Eddie Guardado. It's pretty much impossible for us to study the spreadsheets and be any good at all at predicting which of these guys has the necessary intangibles and will hone their skills and which ones will flame out.
  12. bird
    Quite common however for outfielders.
  13. bird
    Perhaps you meant to say if a new GM comes in here and tells his new pitching coach to get Gibson to change his act. Has a certain appeal, eh?
  14. bird
    I remember things a little differently. I remember that Detroit's farm system had been depleted to the point where most experts ranked it as one of the two or three worst pipelines in the league. This was certainly pointed out as a factor in any discussion of Detroit's longer-term prospects given its aging MLB roster. Prior to the trades, a comparison between the Twins and the Tigers could reasonably favor the Twins in terms of rotation depth. I remember that Dombrowski made what many thought at the time might turn out to be brilliant trades. The farm system contributed nothing to these trades. Detroit's farm system is still thought to be one of the weakest systems in the league. Most of the talk you're recalling may have come before these trades, although there were probably some who simply didn't realize just how artfully Dombrowski pulled off his final maneuvers as the Tiger GM. Contrary to what Nick is suggesting, aside from Norris ranking among the best 20 prospects, Fulmer was also a top 100 prospect, and Matt Boyd had just earned an honor from one source as best pitcher in all of MiLB. So, all three of these guys were elite pitching prospects by most standards. The one legitimate question people expressed was how ready any of the three might be to contribute to a pennant drive in 2017, and that's one of the reasons that most people saw the Central Division as a tough one to predict. While I agree with Nick and others that the one viable way to acquire a frontline starter is to trade Dozier, I think we need to resist any notion that we're in any position to do what Detroit did. Dozier, despite his amazing run here, does not offer comparable value to what Price and Cespedes offered at the time of those transactions.
  15. bird
    Agreed. As Seth points out via Bernardino, and on tonight's pre-game, Paulie clearly said Park suffered a second and distinct injury to his hand, separate from the problem he had with his wrist. Anyone who suggests either of the two injuries caused his performance to suffer or alternatively had no impact on his performance are just guessing.
  16. bird
    That is probably an irrational thing on my part, but I hate it. Help me out. What my eyes see way too often is what looks like a very hittable first pitch. I'm probably wrong about that? I'm surmising that, since he's well-scouted, pitchers "know" he's going to be taking and therefore throw something from their arsenal that they "know" they can throw for a strike, right? And probably not at its nastiest. So, I'm listening to Smalley and other commentators constantly talking about how a hitter's AB depends on taking advantage of the one or two pitches in an AB that they can destroy. I realize Joe gets a ton of walks by being patient, gets hits because he sees a lot of pitches, gets a lot of two-strike hits. But I also have this perception that he's increasingly vulnerable these days when it's a pitcher's count, especially to the strikeout. Where's Parker when you need him?
  17. bird
    My bad, I misinterpreted troyhobb's comment: "the ONLY reason Joe catches flack is because of his contract". The bottom line is that too many people "hate" him because they can't separate their thoughts about his contract from their thoughts about his performance. We all know those people, and we probably all know a few adoring fans who don't particularly care about his contract and aren't particularly discerning about his performance. There are many of us who don't give a rip about his contract but find "some fault" with his performance. They are not connected whatsoever for us. OTOH, we might, now or in the future, fault the FO because Mauer is still playing despite clearly superior alternatives simply because, in our estimation, they refuse to "waste" $23M. In my view of things, that time hasn't arrived but might be quickly approaching, maybe next year. It'll be interesting to see how the new GM handles the situation. Not sure what A-rod has to do with our discussion. And no one here believes anything that even resembles the "most hated player in the game." thing. Where did THAT come from? troyhobbs clarified his earlier comment quite well.
  18. bird
    I also see reasons for some of the flack he gets that have nothing to do with his contract.
  19. bird
    Different game, of course, but I think it's the same with Mauer. Could he have expanded his strike zone and swung at more balls in RBI situations? Sure, and maybe a few times it would have resulted in runs. More often, it would have resulted in a bad at bat. Instead, he looked in the on-deck circle and noticed Morneau or Cuddyer or Sano and said, but if I get on base, then that guy can knock in the run and me too and at the end of the day, we have even more runs. (quote) I wish I bought this, Seth, but I just don't. I'm inclined to say it's a conditional habit that demonstrates a stubbornness and even a selfishness. Granted, lots of players get wide eyes in those situations and swing out of their shoes, and granted, Mauer probably gets fewer hittable pitches than most, and granted, Pucket can clobber a bad ball whereas Mauer can't and shouldn't try. But still...just recall how often Mauer gets into a two-strike count with runners on base where a strike was called on him. And you're taking your bat out of your own hand for Cuddyer or even Morneau?
  20. bird
    My "dislike" of Joey is misplaced, irrational, and based on misperceptions. But it just won't go away. I keep seeing pitchers pour hittable first pitches down the heart of the plate while Joey's bat stays superglued to his shoulder as if he'd face a firing squad if he dared swing. I see a big, strong, remarkable athlete that apparently lacks the athletiism to adjust his swing and pull hittable pitches over the right field fence a dozen times a year. Or maybe he's stubborn. I see a player who is selfish and unimaginative, and one of the confirmations of this particular misperception is that he appears to be unwilling to expand the zone by just a fraction with men on base and seems happy to coax a walk in situations where the team needs its stud player to carry them on his back with a big knock. I see a player vulnerable to injury, and unlucky for sure, but also perhaps somewhat deserving of the nickname of General Soreness. I see a player who lacks the "it" factor. I see a player who demonstrates almost no visible leadership dimension. He's uninspiring to watch on the baseball diamond much of the time, and he's boring in the interview room. I can't recall the last time a teammate sung his praises to the media, especially regarding something he did to help them personally. I see a remarkable athlete, taken 1/1 in the draft for a reason, who has under-shot the mark in his career, and, as misguided and irrational as it is, I tend to think injuries played a smaller role in this than his own human flaws did. So, as great as his career has been, in my mind it should have been better. The arithmetic doesn't tell the full story of the performance I've witnessed over the years.
  21. bird
    I guess that makes sense. So you're fine with Gordon, Berrios, Jay if he pans out, but not so much Kiriloff I imagine.
  22. bird
    You guys are geniuses! Half the teams in baseball lacked the scouting projection skill you and stevj apparently possess, because they missed out on Giolito, Seager, and Russell in the top half of that draft. Who should the Twins take this year, you guys?
  23. bird
    So who should the Twins have picked in 2007? Why did so many teams fail to find that high upside starter you wanted the Twins to select in 2007? They sure as heck tried. In Revere's draft,, high school pitchers were taken three picks after Revere (Smoker), and again at #42, #44, #47, #53, #58, #60, and #62, if I looked carefully and remembered right. Not a single one of those guys ever pitched an inning of MLB baseball, I'm fairly sure. If the next five teams picked guys that gave them ZERO WAR, and no HS pitcher worked out over the next 30 picks or so, can you label the Revere pick as a bad one? And if so, doesn't this suggest that the Twins are in fact not EXCEPTIONALLY bad at this drafting thing? Would Berrios, Stewart, Gonsalves, Romero, Thorpe, and Jorge qualify as high upside starters? I get the theory and the appeal of a high school pitcher who might eventually take a spot at the front of the rotation over a lower ceiling college guy, and I think the Twins do too, but they're not always available, especially later on in the round.
  24. bird
    Okay, but let's talk comparatively. Let's start back in 2007. Ben Revere's selection was (and still often is) roundly criticized. He was the 28th selection. He was a "reach", and logic tells us that teams selecting directly after the Twins should have been able to take advantage of the fact that the idiots in Minnesota passed up a few stronger prospects. The next 5 prospects taken in 2007 were Wendell Fairley, Andrew Brackman, Josh Smoker, Nick Noonan, and Jon Gilmore. So, not only did the Twins in retrospect appear to have selected wisely, but now let's look at what happened ahead of their opportunity to select a player. What you'll find is that 19 of the 27 players drafted ahead of Revere will end up having worse careers than Revere, or no career at all. In other words, looking at the 33 players selected, only 8 of them will have been better, and none of the eight were available for the Twins to draft. I can expand on this for the next four years. Of the 25 players selected just after the Twin's selection (five each year), only 4 of the 25 project to accumulate more WAR than the player selected that year by the Twins. Those are Randal Grichuk and Michael Trout, both selected by the Angels in the #24 and #25 slots in Gibson's year, Brett Lawrie, selected 2 slots later than Hicks, and Christian Yelich, selected 2 slots after Wimmers. And importantly here, we're talking about the 5 Twins draft selections that people rant about the most among those of the last decade: Revere, Hicks, Gibson, Wimmers, and Michael. And contrary to the general impression and the common narrative, over half of the 110 players drafted ahead of the Twin's selections in this time period will likely have no better careers or will have worse careers than the Twin's selections. And again, we're dealing with two of the five probably having no career to speak of with Michael and Wimmers, and two others being rightfully viewed as having less than stellar careers in Revere and Hicks. Only a half-dozen teams were NOT guilty of passing on Trout. So two dozen teams are complete idiots. When people say the Twins are crappy at drafting, I agree with them. When people say the Twis are EXCEPTIONALLY bad at it, I say prove it, apples to apples.
  25. bird
    We see this statement around here all the time. Frankly, I think it shows a level of myopia, and here's why: For starters, terrible compared to whom? Kiriloff Jay Gordon Stewart Berrios Buxton Michael Wimmers Gibson Hicks Ten year's worth of picks. Surely, there's lots to quibble about, for example Fulmer instead of Jay. But to say that they've made terrible decisions? At the time of almost all of these picks, I believe you would find more commentary from the draft experts applauding the decision than you'd find criticizing the choice. The last four, Michael, Wimmers, Gibson, and Hicks, have been constantly touted around here for years as the poster children for how crappy our GM is (because he obviously single-handedly selects these guys, we all know that). No consideration seems to EVER be even begrudgingly offered by critics for EITHER the draft order OR the quality of the draft that year. And it's almost ALWAYS a criticism that doesn't allow for comparison. But that doesn't stop many critics from continuing with the narrative that the Twins are exceptionally bad at it, and the main retort to my pushback is the current record, as if no other factors could even possibly be the main source of the problem. No, bad draft decisions simply HAVE to be a big contributing factor to the teams struggles, they say. And so, I keep asking people to go back and review those four drafts, 07'-'10, and make a list of the 5 players taken after Michael, Wimmers, Gibson, and Hicks. Now, if the Twins were all that bad, wouldn't you think that a majority of those 20 selections would be productive players? Certainly, half of them at least? I have yet to get a response. Not once. My theory is that, by Taildragger's definition, almost ALL teams are terrible drafters over this ten-year period of time. Because, maybe their Gibson and their Hicks were not all that impressive and it goes unnoticed that, if looked at fairly, that was pretty much the best they could do in that particular draft given their particular order in that particular draft. So, c'mon guys, go ahead. Go out to the '08 draft and tell us who which two prospects they should have considered within a few slots after Gibson if they had any brains in their heads. And if you mention some Cy Young winner selected in the 37th round, you deserve to be banished for life.
×
×
  • Create New...