Jump to content
The 2026 MLB Draft is THIS WEEK. Click here to view our latest mock draft board! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    46,877

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    330

 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 Mike Sixel

  1. Mike Sixel
    which RP got a chance this ST, other than Chargois? Signing the vets pretty much meant that the young guys didn't get a chance, imo. And, maybe NONE of them deserved a chance. That might be the problem here, not one of their AA or AAA RP arms even deserved a chance to make the roster. If so, maybe they should be out there signing guys younger than 36, because if the pipeline is so dry that none of them even deserve a shot, that's not good.
  2. Mike Sixel
    not on the list on ESPN that calculates the age of the roster......
  3. Mike Sixel
    Well, they didn't take flyers on guys with upside, look at those ages. Also, I don't agree, which is cool. I would have had Chargois on the roster. At some point, you have to take some risks. It is clearly a difference in philosophy. I would have traded Dozier and put Polanco in his stead, not sure who my backup INF is, that might have made the roster older, I don't know, but the starters would have been younger. I would have traded ESan, and replaced him with Berrios or Mejia as my plan. I would have tried a flyer on a younger RP than 36 years old. At what point does not bringing up young RPs turn from "it's a stop gap" to "it's not the plan"? I am asking a question, because I think three years into not really doing it, it seems to be a plan that is continuing. I'm not even sure any young RP had a shot, other than Chargois. Did they give any young RP a chance?
  4. Mike Sixel
    I'm kind of interested in the 25 man roster, not the 40 man. Here is who they added: Belisle 36 Breslow (not on the 40 man list....) 36 Gimenez (also not on their 40 man list) 34 Haley 25 Castro 29 So, until the data is updated, it's kind of hard to take it as useful right now. I guess people can keep saying this makes sense for a 103 loss team, but we'll just disagree. As for the age of the inherited players, well, I'm kind of interested in what this FO is doing...not as much the past.
  5. Mike Sixel
    trading Santana and putting Mejia or Berrios in his place as the plan would have made them older? Let me be more clear, the people this FO added are older players, not younger players. I'm not sure how I failed to make that clear, but hopefully now I have. This FO added older players, not younger players. And they tried to sign a 30 something DH, to make it even older.
  6. Mike Sixel
    So, it is like FTE at work? 12 employees working 75% of the time is only 8 FTE? cool!
  7. Mike Sixel
    I was responding to the comments that they didn't get younger, nothing more or less than that. a 103 loss team got older, not younger. The youth on this roster were all inherited. that's all that post was about.
  8. Mike Sixel
    better than on your monitor, or so I'm led to believe.
  9. Mike Sixel
    I can't see the OF thing happening, they have Grossman and Santana on the roster. Who would that additional OF replace? It is certainly possible they are working on a Haley trade, but if so, why announce moves now?
  10. Mike Sixel
    Don't most regulars play around 150-155 games? do other teams bench starters more than that, to keep guys on the bench fresh? I actually don't know, hence the question. I assumed you meant he'd be benched a lot more than that.
  11. Mike Sixel
    You know, meeting expectations is sometimes negative....
  12. Mike Sixel
    actually, according to new research on ESPN (insider required, I think), tearing down to the studs and losing a lot does help.
  13. Mike Sixel
    why do the have to get other guys playing time? Help me out here. I'd say your numbers are about correct.
  14. Mike Sixel
    But, like DanSan, he can play multiple positions. So, um, yay.
  15. Mike Sixel
    if that was their plan, they would have traded Dozier, no? They would have traded ESan, no? I don't see evidence of a tear down and rebuild at all.
  16. Mike Sixel
    Only 47 qualified hitters hit .287 or higher last year. I'd be thrilled if Polanco was in that group, and played decent enough SS.
  17. Mike Sixel
    And do you really want them making cuts/changes after 2 weeks of data? If so, why not just start with those guys?
  18. Mike Sixel
    Let's recall, just 20 or 30 days ago, they DFA'd Park. In some ways, not letting ST change their mind is good... As for not getting younger, Berrios and Chargois and Murphy are off the roster, two of whom were replaced by older players that won't be here in 2 years, maybe 1, maybe only a few months. Here is who they added: Castro, Gimenez, Belisle, Breslow, Haley, Mejia. I don't think Gimenez, Belisle, and Breslow will be on the next good team this team fields. They aren't exactly young. Castro might be, but he's not spring chicken (to be clear, I like the signing, but he will be a backup in 2 years probably). Haley is the annual rule V pick that can't be cut no matter how bad he is, even if there are guys in the minors about as good. We can hope that this time it turns out. Mejia is the one young guy they really added, but his upside is number 4 starter, more likely he is a nice innings eater and a 4/5. So, where is the upside? Where are the risks? Where did they get younger? The fact that they are young has nothing to do with this FO, they inherited a young team. Where did this FO take a risk on a young player with upside?
  19. Mike Sixel
    Somehow I am out of likes for the day. Now, I know that's not possible, since it is only 721 am here.....
  20. Mike Sixel
    This team got older, with no ceiling to be good in a year or two. No chances at all are being taken on high upside players that weren't already on the 25 man roster. Indeed, they somehow managed to decrease the number of guys from the end of last year that were young with upside. On a 103 loss team...
  21. Mike Sixel
    At the rate they are fixing problems, the Twins should be great in 15 years, assuming everyone they bring on is still good then.... On a more serious note, people keep typing the following: "it's not a big deal, they can just cut him in a few weeks" "no big deal, they'll make adjustments in a few weeks" "they won't carry 13 pitchers for long" How do you know any of this? All we can go on is their actual actions. Their actual actions were all about bringing in veterans, and keeping DanSan and 13 pitchers on the roster. There is no evidence, at all, that decisions were driven by best performances, since none of the guys that were here before they came, that were not on the 40 man, made the roster. Only guys they acquired were added from off the 40 man. So, I guess what I'm saying is, we don't know at all what they are going to do, but we sure as heck know what they did. And what they did, so far, isn't pretty.
  22. Mike Sixel
    the "young" arms are 25-27 years old. They are literally losing velocity today.
  23. Mike Sixel
    I would guess Kepler is the backup 1B, yes. 13 pitchers, with off days. Must be some kind of stat head nerd geek thing no else has thought of....
  24. Mike Sixel
    Fair, i would not deal him. I think he's still a possible long term 4+ WAR player.
  25. Mike Sixel
    Next year, Chief, next year.
×
×
  • Create New...