Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,364

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    338

 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mike Sixel

  1. Mike Sixel
    I have always agreed with you that lower revenue teams don't do this. I have disagreed that they shouldn't ever do it, though in this post, we seem to be agreeing that IF there is a premier FA SP, they should try to sign him (even knowing the last 1-2 years will probably stink relative to the contract). I think AZ has a much bigger tv deal, so I agree, I'm not sure they are like the Twins. Clearly, rightly or wrongly, lower revenue teams agree with your general stance, that they should not go in for big time FAs (though the Cards have re-signed their own players to big deals, or tried to).
  2. Mike Sixel
    Can Phil Hughes and Glen Perkins be counted on as factors going forward? No. Anything you get from them is a bonus, but counting on either to be healthy would be foolish, imo. I guess I don't understand two things about Sano. 1. The sample size on defense is tiny. He hasn't played 3B hardly at all for 2 years. If he's healthy, why not play him there next year? 2. Why is it wrong/bad/evil to just make him a DH, if it turns out he's awful at fielding? Which relievers can be counted on? Pretty much none of them other than Pressley.....which is a real bummer. to me, the biggest questions are: Can Sano field? Can Buxton hit? Can Berrios pitch? What do you do with Polanco/Dozier? Other than that, the other stuff pales, imo.
  3. Mike Sixel
    They didn't, and the Royals lost for over 30 years......I too would rather add the FAs when the team is good, and they need to fill one hole....but, I guess, since it is an entertainment business that somewhat relies on butts in seats....at some point, they need to try to speed up the process, imo. I do agree, the Twins can't buy a team like the Yankees used to. No place have I advocated that that. Had they signed a big time FA 5 years ago, to a 6 year deal......would they be hamstrung right now? How about 4 years ago? Nope. edit: I think I was clear, best, not most expensive. And, I was clear, you'd have to be lucky to do that. No place have I ever stated they should sign the most expensive FA every year. No place.
  4. Mike Sixel
    Wow, there's a lot in this post.....I especially like the polite way it is posted... Where did I say the following: 1. FA contracts are good the whole length of the contract 2. Teams should sign players that are under performing 3. Teams should sign many mediocre players at the same position, rather than 1 good player 4. They should never trade prospects for proven players to get over the hump No place, in the history of this site, did I post those things. But, it was an excellent straw man post.
  5. Mike Sixel
    Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out when I get home!
  6. Mike Sixel
    I don't think it is fair to say "he had a bigger payroll before, so he can't work here"....which I don't THINK anyone is saying...... We just don't know what he'd do with a smaller payroll as a constraint.
  7. Mike Sixel
    There are some awesome points in this post, and it was very polite. Thank you. I agree with pretty much all of that, really. The one part I don't agree with....is that not signing FAs is part of why bad teams are bad. They have decided (probably correctly) that they should wait 3-5 years to be good....and will build slowly thru the draft (and, for teams not named the Twins, Cubans or expensive Japanese players) and thru the international amateur lines. I have no issue with that decision at all. It is generally the correct decision. OTOH......If a bad team signs the best FA every year for three years......it is certainly possible to speed up the process, though you'd have to be very lucky/skilled, to pick the right player(s). Frankly, imo, a bad team should sign highly variable players to low/mid 1 year make good deals, and then when they work, trade them......but I am sympathetic to those that believe you can speed up the process by signing legit FAs. I am more sympathetic to your stance, though.
  8. Mike Sixel
    I don't think anyone is arguing that signing 1 player is going to fix the world.....I think some are arguing that NOT signing expensive FAs is cutting off one way to acquire players. For me, if the team is bad, and they have lots of money, I don't see the general harm in signing a FA. He probably won't turn the team around, but unless he is blocking a young player......it probably isn't an issue for most teams to sign high priced players. Now, it can later create salary constraints, but that's about planning and resource allocation and being willing to trade players and lots of stuff.....Nothing about having Mauer on this roster prevents them from spending more money. It is how the money is spent that matters. I don't expect everyone to agree with this, btw. But, it is where I sit.
  9. Mike Sixel
    It would definitely be a change. I just don't know enough about how a GM decides what to do to know what to say about most of the candidates. Also, all the moves have to be looked at in context. What I like about what AA did at the end was that he saw NYY and BOS were not their normal powerhouses, and he struck when he had the chance. The Jays were the best AL team last year, they just happened to lose in the tourney. They look like about the 2nd or 3rd best team this year in the AL. It's hard to argue with the outcomes at the end of his tenure.
  10. Mike Sixel
    Bah, he didn't even hit a HR last night, did he? Bum.
  11. Mike Sixel
    Thanks for the work on this! I really like Granite and Wade a lot....(well, I like others also, but for some reason I wanted to type that).
  12. Mike Sixel
    You'd rather give up players than money? The team has plenty of revenue, when winning, to have a payroll north of $115 to 125MM....
  13. Mike Sixel
    This is a "reward" for how they did, not how they are going to do in the future, isn't it?
  14. Mike Sixel
    if you won't give Grienke that contract....you won't give any 32 YO FA that contract. I think you are not in line with the current market, frankly. That is the market.
  15. Mike Sixel
    Some great seasons, but Gonsalves clearly had the best. Congrats to him and everyone on this list.
  16. Mike Sixel
    AZ thinking they were 1-2 players from being great was only one of their issues. I had no issue with the Grienke deal, it's just money....but the Miller deal was ridiculous. And, none of this even touches on them literally not knowing the rules for trades and other things. Not to mention their utter and complete hatred of advanced statistical analysis.
  17. Mike Sixel
    AZ won a lot last year, made the ridiculous assumption that their players would all get better this year (ignoring what other teams have done, and possible declines in their own players' performances), and decided they needed to trade for and sign SP. Sounds a lot like what the Twins could have done this off season......and kind of did. It appears the Twins assumed Buxton, Berrios, Sano, Duffey, Rosario would all get better this year.....and that they didn't need to add players. similar analyses of flawed teams (plus AZ lost it's best player for most of the year)....
  18. Mike Sixel
    I know people are change averse......but everything changes every day. Everything. The inability to adapt to change, and to respond appropriately, that is what we are talking about here, imo. Sometimes you should go all in. Sometimes you should be very cautious. Pointing out that AZ shows that change is bad, which is an exaggeration of the OP's point, I think, is harmful to most companies. Companies need to change every day, if you aren't changing, you literally cannot be improving. I'm not sure what the OP's point was, exactly. Was it that if you change, things can go badly? Well, sure. Things can also go badly if you sit on your hands and hope things get better.
  19. Mike Sixel
    That made me laugh out loud, thank you.
  20. Mike Sixel
    For some of you, sure....for some of us, well, we are pretty.
  21. Mike Sixel
    See, I like that design. Funny. off topic: I never click on the article from a thread...what else am I missing?
  22. Mike Sixel
    Not sure....maybe it is blocked at work, but I don't see the design....anyplace on this post.
  23. Mike Sixel
    I do agree that adults don't need legislation for town ball games.....but that will likely lead to a lot of really bad decisions.
  24. Mike Sixel
    Standing still and doing nothing is also a choice....when a train is coming at you, it is a bad choice. The premise that somehow changing things is more risky is not backed by facts at all. On the literal reading side......no, no one wants them to hire people wholly unqualified for the job that have zero experience.
  25. Mike Sixel
    Congrats to him. So awesome.
×
×
  • Create New...