Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

nytwinsfan

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,784

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 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 nytwinsfan

  1. nytwinsfan
    No, no you are not.
  2. nytwinsfan
    Fair enough.
  3. nytwinsfan
    Padres, and they have some catchers.
  4. nytwinsfan
    I'm on board, but I doubt Terry Ryan is. He is going to be reluctant enough to trade away one of his two guys with a "veteran presence"TM, let alone both of them.
  5. nytwinsfan
    I completely agree, although I also think the Twins should wait/try to get good value for Plouffe, and that especially if Hunter isn't back there would be value in having Plouffe on the team the first part of next year until Kepler and Buxton come back up. That being said, if you can get good value for him (for example a catcher with decent upside or (probably with additional guys in a package) a good starting pitcher prospect), then by all means pull the trigger this winter.
  6. nytwinsfan
    Arcia had 65 PAs in the majors this season, hardly enough to draw any conclusions from. Plus you were discussing "consistency," so to me that means over more than a single season, but I get your point. I think overall (not just one season) of major league track record (over which time, btw Arcia was younger than Plouffe, and is thus more likely to improve) is generally a better predictor of future performance.
  7. nytwinsfan
    Oswaldo Arcia, career OPS: .741, career SLG. .437 Trevor Plouffe, career OPS: .728, career SLG. .420 Now that being said, Arcia's problems in the minors the second half of this season are troubling, and probably sufficient to hedge on whether he would be expected better than Plouffe in 2016. However, based on past major league statistics, which is what you seem to be going on, Sano plus Arcia would be better than Sano plus Plouffe. I don't understand how the charts/stats above possibly say otherwise.
  8. nytwinsfan
    In Terry Ryan/Dave St. Peter's mind, basically .030 of every rookie's OPS gets attributed/allocated to Hunter, Plouffe, or Dozier, for their veteran presence/leadership. I'm only half joking.
  9. nytwinsfan
    Well, if you post a comment that is critical about posts of a certain category (e.g., specific-trade posts) in a post that falls within that category, it is more than reasonable to interpret that comment as being critical of the post, even if it is written in "general" terms (i.e., regardless of whether you also meant it to apply to other posts about specific trades). If you didn't mean it to apply to this post specifically, you would have started out by saying something like, "Although I think this post is good and valuable for reasons A and B," OR "Although it might not apply to this specific post," . . . "generally I think [specific-trade posts are bad for reasons X and Y]." Otherwise the reasonable (indeed the only reasonable) inference is that it applies to this post too. If you say that your comment was not intended at all as a criticism of this post, then despite finding that hard to believe I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but in context it seemed like a pretty straightforward criticism of it to me. Also, nothing wrong with criticizing someone's post (lord knows I certainly do that sometimes). I just thought your criticism (which wasn't even a criticism, apparently), wasn't fair or helpful. I don't think he "crossed the line." I just think his post was unfair to the author and detracting from the conversation.
  10. nytwinsfan
    Polanco? Sure, his power will be less, but he has the potential for higher Avg. and probably OBP too. Also, his defense is pretty solid at 2B. His only weakness on D is his arm, which won't matter much at 2B. All of that being said, I wouldn't trade Dozier unless someone really knocked my socks off with an offer (i.e., like the Harvey deal mentioned above). While Polanco has the potential to be as good as Dozier, I'd want to see how he does a bit more at the major league level before I would depend on it.
  11. nytwinsfan
    Ok, I admit I can't speak for everyone here, but I come to Twins Daily to read careful, thoughtful, and specific analysis of baseball, not obviously true axioms of General Managing 101 that I assume we all already know and accept. TwinsTerritory made a very careful, thoughtful analysis of some potential trades that could feasibly happen. I'm sure he of course realizes the odds of any specific trade happening are slim, and of course he realizes he doesn't have a psychic connection to Terry Ryan's brain. But at least he put himself out there and took a shot. And frankly, he did a pretty good job of it. That's the kind of writing that makes me come to Twins Daily. Criticizing him and insinuating he does not understand borderline tautological premises of baseball transactions is neither fair to him, nor contributing anything interesting to the conversation. I realize that my comment here is a little mean, and I will understand if moderators tell me to tone it down, but this criticism of the post seems entirely gratuitous, unfair, and frankly, devoid of substance. It does a disservice to the discussion here.
  12. nytwinsfan
    A lot of people may rip on these trades, but the poster clearly put some careful thought into them, and they all seem within the realm of reason. Nice job. These are more likely to happen than the usual ridiculous stuff that people post sometimes, although just as any specific trade is not that likely to happen, so are these. But they are more likely to happen than many others.
  13. nytwinsfan
    I agree with pretty much all of this. But I also think Terry Ryan agrees with almost none of it, except (I hope) Escobar.
  14. nytwinsfan
    I have not seen any evidence to support the poster's theory. I for one don't want Hunter back next year because he will be 41 and he contributed -0.9 WAR this year according to Baseball Reference. While his power is still average, his defense and OBP are both poor. There is simply no room for him on the 25-man or the 40-man next year. All that said, I would be fine with him coming back as a bench coach.
  15. nytwinsfan
    I still think ideally Kepler would be a corner outfielder. I'm still not convinced Hicks is more than a good platoon/4th outfielder. But I do agree that Kepler will get more than a bit of time at 1B next year at some point. Good to hear his defense there looks very good.
  16. nytwinsfan
    Interesting take on Kepler from Minor League Ball's Nick Melotte's observations of game 5 of the Southern League Championship against Biloxi. To say he was impressed by Kepler is an understatement, and the stats on that Home Run are quite impressive. Only dissapointment is that he didn't have much to say about the other Twins minor leaguers (like Polano or Walker), other than a bit on Baxendale. Here is the money paragraph on Kepler with highlights in bold. Also, while we are on the topic of Kepler, I really hope he gets a shot to start tomorrow in game 162, and I imagine he will. I want to see that swing and strike zone judgment.
  17. nytwinsfan
    How so?
  18. nytwinsfan
    Seems that not swinging at meatball strikes on the first pitch being Buxton's problem is pretty obvious, even before your confirming stats Parker. Surprised Bruno, et al. haven't gotten him to swing more on first pitches as the season has gone on.
  19. nytwinsfan
    Not sure about an All-Star (although he certainly has the stuff for that potential), but sure as heck should be given a chance to start next year if he's 100% healthy.
  20. nytwinsfan
    I agree with these. Good choices and reasons.
  21. nytwinsfan
    Yup, probably working on the breaking ball. Usually the changeup is the last thing to arrive, so he is kind of in the reverse situation.
  22. nytwinsfan
    Thanks Jeremy. I really appreciate the insights into these details.
  23. nytwinsfan
    What does that mean? What about his stuff is "good" or better than Gonsalves' stuff? Fastball is faster, curveball is curvier, slider is slidier, and changeup is changier?
  24. nytwinsfan
    Why did they rip you for it? Were you just reporting that scouts preferred Stewart's stuff, or did you endorse that view? Why do scouts prefer Stewart's stuff, and if you agree, why do you? What about his stuff makes scouts (and you?) think it may ultimately be better than Gonsalves? Be really interested to hear more about this.
  25. nytwinsfan
    Here is more on Palacios and Wade in the BA chat about the Appy League top 20 list: Placios was also ranked 17 in the top-20 for the Gulf Coast League: http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/gulf-coast-league-top-20-prospects/ Strangely, while he was ahead of Daz Cameron in the Appalachian League, he is behind him here in the GCL. This might conceivably make sense if Palacios' performance was relatively better in the Appalachian League than in the GCL while Cameron's performance was better in the GCL than in the Appalachian League. But actually if you look at Cameron's and Palacios' stats, the exact opposite is true: Palacios had a 1.061 OPS in the GCL and a .852 OPS in the Appy League. Cameron had a .576 OPS in the GCL and a .721 OPS in the Appy League. So anyway, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about how those rankings go (must be based on scouting, not just performance, and by different people). But assuming then that it must be two different sets of scouts for each league, it is great to see Palacios considered a real prospect by scouts for two different leagues.
×
×
  • Create New...