Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    48,924
  • 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

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

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. Tait is 19.... If you mean Abel, agreed, we don't know yet. But he better be a lot better than anyone is predicting for this to work.
  2. Certainly one opinion, not shared by fangraphs, as neither is in their top 100.
  3. Btw, fangraphs removed Tait from the top 100 list this week.... So, double yuck.
  4. How would we know who was offered? They didn't have to trade him....
  5. It was a huge part of our retirement savings since I was there for a decade. I think we're still ok, but I'm no longer sure.
  6. Keaschell and Culpeper are college guys who will be here this year and next, while they have Lopez and Ryan.... Tait will not.
  7. They did not need to trade him now! More bidders in the off season! I guess I should stop....
  8. This trade signals full on rebuild. Unless somehow Abel is good now...... They didn't get a guy that is likely to help for two or three years.
  9. It can be both less fun to watch, and still the right thing to do to win....
  10. They could have just drafted Teel, who is already in the majors....
  11. Ummmm. It's literally the opposite. Tait is much higher ranked.
  12. Not impressed. This is what you get when you can't develop any catchers? That's two trades for guys who won't be here for years and years. Like, this is a really bad trade.
  13. Good thing they played with a short bench! No one could have seen this coming with the history of this FO.....
  14. You can think what you want. I'm merely pointing out what others are saying. But it's hard to believe anyone thinks including a negative asset didn't decrease the return.
  15. I'd trade him. I think the owners pocket the money, and I think he could be good again, but I think he could decline. This team isn't winning with old guys, and maybe if they get rid of CC, they'll go young everywhere. Which also might not work! But it might discourage the France type signing..... I'm just done with this core.
  16. People on these boards have posted the data. The twins are middle of the pack in innings, in the minors and majors. I have no interest in crunching the numbers myself.
  17. I mean, the national media is saying they got less back because they included dobnak.....
  18. I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Maybe I'm just tired.
  19. Complaining they are giving young guys an opportunity, while also calling for them to sell does seem like an odd choice. Agreed.
×
×
  • Create New...