Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,925

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    340

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mike Sixel

  1. Mike Sixel
    I'm not arguing I KNOW anything. I'm having a conversation on a baseball conversation site.
  2. Mike Sixel
    no, but they carry more cost, since you are giving up a player and taking on risk. And, a AAA or AA player is just a prospect, those sometimes fail. More often than we think. Even the highly rated ones. I never said "more risk", I clearly said "risk". Do we see a lot of MLB ready pitchers traded? I don't know the answer to that, have there been many/any in the last 5 years? DeLeon, assuming you thought he was MLB ready.....but I have no idea about others.
  3. Mike Sixel
    Well, I'm told no one wants Dozier, and ESan is off limits....and you aren't dealing Buxton or Sano....so Polanco and Kepler?
  4. Mike Sixel
    I was talking about the Twins. They have 2 veterans to trade, plus Polanco, plus prospects (unless you are trading Sano or Buxton) to get starter(s). Sure, if you have veterans you can trade for AA or AAA players. That involves risk, though, as you are now trading for a player in the 30s - 50s or so, most likely. While they don't usually fully bust, they do carry risk. AKA, Meyer, May, Worley....
  5. Mike Sixel
    Uh, that was the point of the math experiment..... do you like: Anyone+Rooker+number 40ish player Lewis+Rooker+Enlow
  6. Mike Sixel
    Fair, I meant it economically as stupid. Of course quality of life is very, very important. if you need work, I know IT shops in Mpls......
  7. Mike Sixel
    People are arguing trading for MLB pitchers, to help next year or the year after. Apparently, no one want Dozier, and Santana is too valuable to trade. Who else are you trading, other than prospects? And, since they refused to make that deal, I'm guessing they won't make it this year either.
  8. Mike Sixel
    that appears to be the argument being made by some here, yes. Of course, prospects aren't traded for each other, so you are trading multiple prospects with many years of control for 1 player with less years of control.....
  9. Mike Sixel
    Good stuff! Thanks to both sides of the conversation!
  10. Mike Sixel
    Well, they could have had Rooker w/o going under slot in pick 1, so I'm not sure that's a good look at the outcomes. Which sounds better? Any player+Rooker+number 40ish player vs Lewis+Rooker+number 29. Given that, I'm not sure I don't like the first one (using your rankings). Really, they must really like Lewis a lot more than number 5, if they planned to take Rooker all along.
  11. Mike Sixel
    And, you are giving up 5-7 years of control of more than 1 player, for 2-3 years of control for 1 player.....you can't afford to miss that way. Not even a little. Imagine if they trade Gordon and Jorge for a number 4-5 type they only control for 3 years....
  12. Mike Sixel
    I'm not rejecting it at all......but it isn't any easier to trade for a cost controlled guy than it is to draft one. You may recall acquiring Vance Worley, Alex Meyer, and Trevor May recently, for example.
  13. Mike Sixel
    He didn't catch this year hardly at all, and forgot how to hit.
  14. Mike Sixel
    it's really stupid to pay off a zero percent loan, sir. sorry to be so blunt, but it's FREE MONEY.
  15. Mike Sixel
    they could, but it's stupid according to every former FO person on the web. 1. You don't know if next year is better 2. you lose a year of you having control 3. you lose someone you could trade earlier....... lots of reasons punting on a high pick is a bad, bad, bad idea.
  16. Mike Sixel
    they also need pitching in 4 years, and they'll need those hitters they traded away then also. Plus, they'll be trading 5-7 years of control (of 1-3 guys) for maybe 2-3 years of control, if lucky. And, both Wright and McKay were said to be fairly likely to pitch in the majors next year, not in 2+ years.
  17. Mike Sixel
    It's not clear to me that it is as easy to get controllable SP in trade as your posts are implying....
  18. Mike Sixel
    I'd probably just sell off enough every month to make payments, but I understand your thought process.
  19. Mike Sixel
    Right, I left off age. He's only 3-5 years from his most likely peak. And 1-3 of those will be in the minors.
  20. Mike Sixel
    He was all helium, so there is some doubt about his ability. Plus, he's probably a 1B/DH. That's all I can find, given his hitting.
  21. Mike Sixel
    The MLB draft, for teams way up at the top especially, is one of game theory. I think trying to control this many moving pieces would be kind of fun, frankly.
  22. Mike Sixel
    Who will you get better than them, that is controllable for more than 2 years? Because I'm not trading Gordon and a SP in AA for a rental. I'm not even trading Gordon alone for a rental. No way.
  23. Mike Sixel
    or they disagree.
  24. Mike Sixel
    Eric A Longenhagen 2:30 Twins take Chipola 3B Andrew Bechtold. Above average bat speed, could be bat-first utility guy. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/eric-longenhagen-prospects-chat-mlb-draft-day-2/
  25. Mike Sixel
    If I could get to youtube at work, that would certainly have been posted, yes.
×
×
  • Create New...