Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

The Great Hambino

Verified Member
  • Posts

    1,901
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 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 The Great Hambino

  1. Have you considered the possibility that disagreeing with you and being irrational are not the same thing? I am not saying that is a miracle. I've said nothing even remotely close to that. I've stated that is has already happened and therefore not some sort of projection. Of course it's relevant that one player's success at the MLB has already been shown and the other's is purely projection. You think Varland has peaked in value. I don't. That's a reasonable disagreement. I think Roden's ceiling is lower than you do. That's a reasonable disagreement. I'd feel differently if he could be a viable centerfielder, but my understanding is that's not in the cards. Rojas is the wild card that will ultimately determine the trade. But to act as if no one could possibly rationally disagree with you is ... well, it's something.
  2. Convenient you leave out that the reliever is less than two years removed from converting from starter to reliever, and is the only one that has actually shown success at the major league level. I'm not assuming zero development from Roden, but you're ignoring that he has some catching up to do. Reasonable minds can differ, but spare me the lectures about rationality
  3. Interesting point about the abundance of single A options to scratch that baseball itch. I'd thought about the transplant issue, but that doesn't seem to hurt them as much in other sports It's hard for me to really tell if a major league team could succeed in Florida because they've never really had a proper stadium. They've had an indoor driving range (trying to diversify my insults of the Trop), a football stadium, and the weirdest stadium built since Camden Yards changed the game
  4. I highly, highly doubt anyone would be saying that if he hadn't been traded. I don't think that was even on the radar until he started showing up in trade rumors. I think the consensus would've been, "At least they have Varland to rebuild the bullpen around"
  5. I disagree. I think he showed closer potential this year. I might be higher on him than others, but that's not a Minnesotan bias. It's a wrestler bias. But that's neither here nor there
  6. Those "fairly cheap" veterans are still more expensive than Varland. And it's not like his trade value was vanishing at the deadline. In fact, he could easily have had more value at future deadlines if he spent 2026 establishing himself as a closer, which I believe he has the stuff and mentality to do. They acted as if this was their last chance to recoup value on him We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Roden. I think that's an incredibly optimistic percentage that assumes no future development on Varland's end
  7. If they go this route (my gut says they will), then Raya, Culpepper, Prielipp, and Rojas should be part of the mix as well at some point in the season. They need to give all of them a look so a more permanent rotation and some semblance of a bullpen can be identified by the end of the year. Adams and Ohl could be in this mix as well to varying degrees. I don't see them as having real shots as permanent fixtures in the rotation (maybe they could be developed into long relief or mid-leverage bullpen options?), but they still should be there to fill out the rotation as needed if some of the above are better served in AAA or injuries start to rack up
  8. All those things are also true about Varland, except he'd be cheaper and with more long-term control. If the Twins had received a Varland clone in one of these trades, we'd be stoked that they at least had a young pre-arb guy with closer potential to build the future bullpen around. My biggest issue with this trade is they acted seemingly out of an urgency that they didn't need to have. This trade just wasn't necessary. It's the kind you make only if you're getting a Godfather offer. Since I see Roden as a low-ceiling redundancy, this value has to come pretty much entirely from Rojas. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about him other than what I've read, but is his median outcome better than what Varland is now? It better be well past that for this to make sense.
  9. Not a bad overall list relative to each other. In my mind, they should get a demerit on every trade that wasn't an expiring contract because, at least from the outside looking in, they didn't need to make those trades. Your trade partners in those trades are doing so because they have an immediate need. In these circumstances, you should be shooting to receive a premium above what the on-paper value would suggest - you should have the leverage. In practice, that's not going to happen with every trade. But Gleeman made a good point that there wasn't one single trade that you can look at and say "Wow, the Twins got great value there" relative to on-paper value. If you're making nine trades, you should be able to say that about at least one of them, right? And the Outman trade should be an F minus. If he needs to be "working on things" at AAA at the age of 28, then he should probably be playing overseas or in independent ball. I honestly would've preferred a complex league flier in return for Stewart
  10. They've spent their entire existence in a barely-accessible warehouse. That has to have played a part in tamping down attendance. And then there's Florida itself. For whatever reason, it seems like baseball is wildly popular in that state at every level ... except for the local teams at the highest level. That's always struck me as odd.
  11. Define VERY strong correlation 4 of the last 8 World Series participants had losing records against >.500 teams in the regular season, including 2 champs
  12. There are currently only 6 teams with winning records against >.500 teams, and two of them are only a game above .500. No one in the NL West is, not even the Dodgers. It's a really tough threshold to reach
  13. Respect the CF for giving it the ol' college try even though it hit the batters eye like 12 feet up
  14. Upon further review, what looked like an awkward turn by Keaschall at first was more due to a low flip from Lee. I rescind by criticism
  15. Not exactly the smoothest 6-4-3 you'll ever see, but got the job done
  16. I'm shocked that LaTroy is shocked that was an error. If that's not an error, then there really isn't any reason to make the distinction
  17. He really wasn't on this one. He was set up for a throw, just not a great transition by my eyes
  18. Ironically, cuz we didn't think the Coast Guard would find us there (We were killing time before a college buddy's wedding that afternoon, and someone in our group has a boat club membership)
  19. Earlier this summer, I was on a boat in Duluth that got boarded by the Coast Guard. Turned out that it was a routine inspection and they had half a dozen young trainees along for the ride. Pierson Ohl looks like every single one of the trainees
×
×
  • Create New...