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
    Ask the Tigers if they were playing a competitive Twins team in September, mike. I'm well aware that your definition of competitive will be much different than anyone associated with the Twins, but maybe you're the one who's wrong here. I'd never question your integrity and suggest you might be lying though, because that is so disrespectful and insulting.
  2. bird
    Just to be different, I'm going with Chargois, Cedaroth, and Alex Meyer.
  3. bird
    Let's dispense with this fallacy that Gardy refused to play "the younger players" in September. Other than Pinto, which "younger players" are we talking about? He didn't play Pinto much, and it was hugely upsetting to a lot of you. It's total conjecture on your part if you believe this had anything to do with Gardy's dismissal, and in my opinion, it's neither important or a likely contributor. I also am guessing that most managers would have handed in very similar lineup cards to what we saw in September. Obvious conjecture on my part here too. Why do I think that might be the case? As much as we'd like it to be different, I lean toward the view that the baseball people, and not just Gardy, see Pinto as a poor long-term fit. After nine years in which he's been given every opportunity, it's not conjecture to say the Twins pretty much know what they have, even if some of us don't. It's always curious to me why any of us think that, because WE haven't seen enough of a prospect to draw our own conclusions, that there is some inherent flaw in how said prospect is being evaluated and handled. Can he back our starter up? Maybe. But getting him AB's at DH is perhaps counter-productive given possibly better offensive options. Expecting significant defensive improvement is wishful, wouldn't you say?
  4. bird
    If I'm the GM, my job is to project the contribution that can be expected from Hicks in 2015. Oh, and then put a fallback plan in place. Ryan has been overly optimistic with his projection on Hicks, not once, but twice, and his fallback plan was atrocious the first time, barely adequate in round two. I just can't get myself to believe that Ryan will screw this up a third time. In my opinion, finding a two-way corner OF, via FA or trade, trumps every other need this off-season. I'm hoping they're projecting Hicks as a first-class 4th OF, although they may be first assessing whether he'll be good in the clubhouse in that role, and it wouldn't shock me if they move him based on that assessment. I'm bringing him into spring training with his clear understanding that he's battling it out for the 4th OF spot, and telling him, "tough if you don't like our projection for you, prove us wrong".
  5. bird
    It only makes sense that a proper analysis and assessment of a club's future takes into account young talent that's in place as well as elite talent that's on the way. I would be inclined to think that BP's ranking is fairly reasonable. However, I'll be very surprised if the Twins didn't shoot up the rankings in the next couple of years, especially if Santana, Arcia, and Vargas turn out not to be flukes and Sano and Buxton become the players they are projected to become. Only time will tell, but I remain hopeful that the Twins, when they assess where they're at this fall as they do each fall, determine that the timing is right to make what I believe is now only a handful of very doable moves to put themselves into position to once again field a sustainably excellent team as early as 2016. A two-way corner OF, a #2-3 starter, and possibly a young catcher would be what I have in mind.
  6. bird
    OK, for the fun of it: Looking back, who would you swap out? 1. Buxton v. Hicks 2. Sano v. Revere 3. Berrios v. Valencia 4. Stewart v. Ramos 5. Meyer v. Angel Morales 6. Gordon v. Swarzak 7. Polanco v. Gutierrez 8. May v. Bromberg 9. Rogers v. Mulvey 10. Burdi v. Tosoni When I posted a similar list for #'s 11-20 I think a couple of my pals here thought I was trying to make a point. What a beautiful list we have here in 2014 compared to what we had to work with four+ years ago. That's the point of the exercise. But I suppose lots of varied conclusions might be drawn from it. Here are some things I personally would or would NOT conclude from comparing the two groups: 1. I would not give the GM very much credit for the improvement, as there are about five dozen employees contributing to the scouting, drafting, signing, and development process. 2. I would not conclude that the Twins are way way better than other teams at this stuff. 3. I would conclude that, contrary to frequent opinions posted here, the Twins are pretty damn good at this stuff now. 4. I would conclude that draft order has both positive and negative influence on what the list looks like, and to pass judgment on an organization's performance without considering this hugely clouds the truth. 5. I would conclude that the fairly common generalization about overrated prospects, that "well remember, we thought player X was pretty good back then, so..." doesn't stand up to scrutiny very well. For example, I don't think anyone thought that Swarzak and Bromberg had similar ceilings to, say May and Meyer, or that Valencia was going to ever be more than a serviceable starter at best. 6. I would conclude that neither list supports or refutes an argument for trading prospects for established MLB players. 7. I would conclude that the very top prospects very very frequently end up performing within the articulated range of expectations. For example, Swarzak was thought to have a ceiling of back-end starter and a floor of mop up guy.
  7. bird
    The velo vs. K question is intriguing, but I've been more curious about whether there's any truth to the notion that the Twins bring up pitchers through the minors with a tendency to have lower K numbers that are NOT related to a lack of talent. I don't know if any conclusions can be drawn in absolute terms from this, but I thought it was interesting: AAA Rochester Team ERA 3.53 2nd of 14 teams Team WHIP 1.29 3rd of 14 Team SO: 2nd of 14 AA New Britain ERA 6/12 WHIP 6/12 SO 4/12 A+ Ft Myers ERA 4/12 WHIP 6/12 SO 8/12 A- Cedar Rapids ERA 9/16 WHIP 4/16 SO 5/16
  8. bird
    Another look-back for the fun of it. Tell me, would you trade: 11. Lewis Thorpe for Tyler Robertson? 12. Eddie Rosario for Luke Hughes? 13. ABWIII for Joe Benson? 14. Gonsalves for Rob Delaney 15. Duffey for Michael McCardell 16. Kepler for Parmelee 17. Hu for Manship 18. Harrison for Dustin Martin 19. Jones for Slama 20. Minier for Plouffe Maybe that last one, right?
  9. bird
    Tactical blunders by managers in important games will always be vividly recalled by a team's most rapid fans. Those decisions get dumber by the year in the retelling of them, in my opinion. Even smart decisions that backfire in important games will often later become dumb moves as memories fog up. A manager's better tactical decisions will be forgotten. The consensus view of Gardy's weakness as a manager is as a tactician. Gardy may always be under-appreciated compared to the Billy Martins and Gene Mauchs in my view, because they were thought of as strong tacticians, although I personally question whether either of them managed a bullpen staff as well as Gardy. Both were perhaps weaker when it came to maintaining harmony in the clubhouse. Having seen every Twins manager in action since 1961, I'll remember Gardy as being up there with the Mauchs, Martins, and Kellys rather than down there with the Irmers, Gardners, and Lavagettos.
  10. bird
    The decision may have been somewhat surprising, but what isn't surprising is the graciousness and class shown by Gardy, Ryan, and the organization.
  11. bird
    Does anyone have a good sense about how many and which teams may be in the mood to dump salary? I know some of you will be incredulous, but indulge the thought for a moment, OK? Jim Pohlad has hinted rather strongly that Ryan has his permission to part with more cash if that's what it takes to improve the team. So maybe acquisitions like Kemp are more realistic this winter.
  12. bird
    Geez, these sound kinda like Torii Hunter's rookie numbers. You can't predict player performance year to year, but a front office has no choice but to assume a projection with a given prospect. Using Hunter as an example, let's first agree that Will Meyer was much more highly thought of than Hunter was at the same stage. So, think of the James Shield comp from that time frame, and ask yourself whether trading Hunter for that pitcher would have been a good risk-reward scenario. Remember, Hunter wasn't projected to be a perennial All Star like Wil Meyers. I thought Dayton Moore was taking a huge risk because projections on every-day players are so much more reliable, and Meyer may end up being a Hunter type guy. The reason I didn't see it as crazy was because I didn't see that the trade backfiring would set the Royals back another ten years. After all, they've been picking at the top of the heap each year for three decades (not 3 years like the Twins). KC still has a VERY formidable pipeline with fewer MLB spots to fill than the Twins. Bottom line for me is the Twins still aren't in a position to take that type of risk.
  13. bird
    I think this is a bit of a fallacy. An organization can make long-term decisions and still have success in the short term. Good teams always have an eye to the future with a goal of sustainable success, and it doesn't have to compromise the present. The Cards are the model for this.
  14. bird
    OK. You named five guys that you apparently feel were justfiably selected ahead of nick's six. So that means only 21 teams were not justified when they faile to select Biddle at #26? My point is twofold. First, when people criticize the Twins for not selecting player x instead of player y, as nick did, it's unfairly presented because it lacks a fair context. Second, players who are passed up emerge. And players who were consensus sure things turn out to be stinkers.
  15. bird
    Because I'm also petty, I like to point out that at least 26 teams passed up on every single one of these six guys. Oh, and over a third of the teams passed on Taijuan Walker twice. The Twins were not one of them.
  16. bird
    Now, THIS is a fair look back. Thanks for the breath of fresh air.
  17. bird
    For (my pathetic version of) fun, I revisited an old list of yours to see what happened with your #21-30 prospects from then. Two are still hanging on by a thread: Deolis Guerra and Deibinson Romero. None made it big, but a few got at least the proverbial cup of coffee: DeVries, Tolleson (still in MLB today), Jose Morales, and the Dinkelman. The others flamed out: Bigley, Hunt, Robbins, and Winfree. Not sure what conclusions might be drawn. I'd love to see a comparison of say, Sickle's grades on both sets. I'm quite sure that the current group would be much more highly regarded, don't you think?
  18. bird
    Without looking anything up and relying on my decline-phase memory, I can recall both instances of promotion by emergency (Cordova, Stahoviak, Becker) and promotion by greed (Wynegar, Carew), but also a combo (Hrbek, Gaetti). Any way you cut it, I think history would show that the really elite players- the Pucketts, Carews, Blylevens- are pretty elite right from the start. That's why I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Buxton and Sano get the call and have success in 2015. And also why it's not surprising that guys like Hicks and Plouffe struggle and guys like Parmelee eventually flame out. What makes it so interesting are these mysteries. For example, is Pinto more like Plouffe, or will he end up more like Stahoviak?
  19. bird
    Exactly. Picking #1-10 gives you roughly a 75% chance of an All Star performer while picking #20-30 lowers it to under 25% as I recall from one study that's been mentioned here a lot. Isn't it funny how people inclined to find a way to criticize can have it both ways. You see, now that the farm system is perhaps five times better than, say, Detroit's, ALL the credit goes to 3 years of high draft choices. Three draft picks. But when there is mention of failed picks, NONE of the failure is ever more than begrudgingly attributed in some small part to the draft order. The truth of the matter is that the organization is far better than the average organization at scouting, drafting, signing, and developing players. Having top choices 3 years running does make it easier for sure, but it's not the only reason our system may be as much as 5 times better than Detroit's.
  20. bird
    Reviewing the past lists would be a lot of fun. However, the prospect quality today, going 50-deep is so vastly superior to what it was just a few years back. And the quality at the top in comparison? There was year not long ago when your top 6 pitching prospects, in order, were Anthony Swarzak, Carlos Gutierrez, David Bromberg, Kevin Mulvey, Tyler Robertson, and Anthony Slama. If you had to dig deeper, you were naming guys like Rob Delaney in he next tier. And you didn't misfire with the rankings, Seth. You won't find guys down the list that emerged. Today? Compare those guys to Alex Meyer, Kohl Stewart, Jose Berrios, Lewis Thorpe, Trevor May, and Nick Burdi. And when you dig deeper into the system, you find a tier populated with guys like Stephen Gonsalves,Fernando Romero, Zack Jones, Taylor Rogers, JT Chargois, Jake Reed, and Michael Tonkin. You'd probably compare the 8 pitchers you've listed so far very favorably with the top 8 pitchers from the list headed up by Swarzak, don't you think? In my opinion, the quality and depth of pitching talent right now is almost hard to fathom, and I've been looking at this stuff since the 1960's.
  21. bird
    This aligns with one of his recent statements: when asked what he needed to accomplish this off-season, the first thing he mentioned was "rotation depth".
  22. bird
    Yeah, I know, and it just irks me to no end that the Twins never ask for an opinion from those of us who know the drill.
  23. bird
    Exactly. Why agonize about ANY of the half-dozen or so pitchers that represent much-needed rotation depth? I don't recall anyone specifically predicting that Pelfrey would be lost for the season, but we know what happens historically as far as injuries go. In spite of Pelfry's absence, in 2014 both the Twins rotation and the Rochester rotation were improved talent-wise over 2013. I expect to check bad a year from now and see another year of better talent in both Rochester and Minneapolis. None of us can predict if Pelfrey will factor into this.
  24. bird
    And it plays quite nicely for a 4th OF
  25. bird
    Every one of these guys is a strong candidate to perform better in 2015. But for my money, I want the most important rebounds to come from Alex Meyer, Byron Buxton, Miguel Sano, Eddie Rosario, and Fernando Romero.
×
×
  • Create New...