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
    As the Vice President of the Alex Swim fan club, I must object. Otherwise, great list, which I pretty much agree with.
  2. nytwinsfan
    True, that's fair. I think we could trade for him this offseason though, when catcher will still be a glaring weakness for us.
  3. nytwinsfan
    Agreed. I thought this thread was about trading for catchers, no? Who suggested trading Plouffe for a relief pitcher (other than Chapman maybe)? I agree that is ridiculous.
  4. nytwinsfan
    Well, because you have a potential (I know, that word) top 5 3B on your team as well, and nobody decent to play catcher. That's what I see. I am pretty sure those of us saying trade Plouffe for a C (this winter btw, not right now) are talking about someone with more than 2 years left of control. I certainly am. I wouldn't trade him for a 1 or 2 year rental.
  5. nytwinsfan
    So you didn't think Buxton should have been the #1 prospect in the Twins system in mid to late 2013? Ok then. If you said it is "rare" that a player in your MiLB system at single A level can or should be your #1 prospect, then I might agree. But this seems kind of like a pointless, arbitrary rule. And I don't think most people think Javier is a top 10 prospect, or even a top 20 prospect really (I assume this is what you are referring to). Maybe a couple do, but that seems kind of like a straw man to me. Finally, why is EVERYONE available if the Twins are contemplating a trade? Again, seems kind of like an arbitrary rule. Maybe you mean Buxton and Sano would hypothetically be available if someone offers a top 10 player in MLB. Sure, ok then. That's not going to happen though. For all practical purposes Buxton and Sano are off limits.
  6. nytwinsfan
    Yup, this. Sano should be at 3B medium to long-term and one or more of Arcia, Vargas, or as of yet unknown free agent should be at DH.
  7. nytwinsfan
    I agree as to Santana, but Arcia still has a lot of potential/perceived potential. Left handed power is not exactly easy to find these days.
  8. nytwinsfan
    This makes sense. Good idea. Phegley looks to be legit.
  9. nytwinsfan
    Great list. I mostly agree. The one guy who is conspicuously absent is Alex Swim.
  10. nytwinsfan
    Why no Alex Swim? His power is lacking, but a high AVG, high OBP, decent glove/arm catcher is pretty valuable.
  11. nytwinsfan
    I really hope they don't trade Kepler. I think he has the most upside in the outfield other than Buxton.
  12. nytwinsfan
    According to some things I've seen on twitter in the last half an hour, he still might sign before the deadline. Jeremy said its 50-50 at this point.
  13. nytwinsfan
    It is because something turned up in his physical. If we lose him it would be a bummer, but we'd still get the 74th pick next year in compensation, so not a total wash.
  14. nytwinsfan
    Nah, Polanco is a great 2B prospect, just not a great SS prospect. They can't find a SS through trades because finding a SS that would be an upgrade over Eduardo Escobar (otherwise what's the point?) through trades would required trading a really good prospect or set of prospects. It isn't worth it, given the next best alternative is pretty decent and basically league average. They did draft Gordon as a potential high-upside SS, but players taken through the draft tend to take a few years to make it to the majors, especially when taken right out of HS.
  15. nytwinsfan
    What did they say about Kepler and Polanco in terms of potential? Do they think Polanco can play SS and do they think Kepler will have enough power to play corner outfield in the majors?
  16. nytwinsfan
    I might put Hu at 9 or 10 and move Stewart down 1 or 2, but otherwise looks about right to me. That is assuming Meyer and Buxton were intentionally left off here because they were in the majors at the time, and Jay because he was just drafted.
  17. nytwinsfan
    Thanks Bob! Does anyone know how much Palacios signed for? Someone must know. Jeremey?
  18. nytwinsfan
    I think someone should do a separate write-up on Palacios. Kid is raking and there is not that much information available about him on the old Google. I don't even know how much he signed for.
  19. nytwinsfan
    Why? We we will have Joe Mauer, Trevor Plouffe, Glen Perkins, Brian Dozier, and maybe Tori Hunter. That's plenty of veteran leadership. We don't need backend starting pitchers or 3B taking up valuable roster spots. If the Twins want to bring in a veteran, it should be a relief pitcher, catcher, or maybe a short stop, although veteran catchers are scary in terms of injury likelihood and age-based performance decline, so I'd be cautious and keep the contract short.
  20. nytwinsfan
    Can't say that I would make the pick again in retrospect, and I get where you are coming from, but if you look on some of the previous threads about Gordon you will see recent links to scout after scout that says his hit tool is at least average (which is good for a SS) and that his defense, arm and speed are all above average to plus. Not a one is worried about any tool except for his power, and some of them even think that will improve significantly (although never enough to make him a power threat). Could all the scouts be wrong? Of course. But they are clearly seeing things that are not coming out in the numbers yet.
  21. nytwinsfan
    By Terry Ryan's own admission, not even he ever says that, and he takes a particularly long-term view (probably to his credit) for a GM. He always says that he always listens to offers. Nobody without a no-trade clause is so invaluable that he won't listen to offers.
  22. nytwinsfan
    Yeah, if they believe a player is underperforming his skill level. Big if. They certainly have other information that other teams might not. But it is also possible they have other information that suggests the struggles are more damning than other teams realize, not less. Again, "all else being equal." Expected level of performance is affected by actual performance, because actual performance is one of the best sources of predicting expected performance. Obviously the Brewers would not have traded Lucroy as if he were a 55+ OPS player, again because small sample sizes make you discount the actual performance. But, "all else being equal" it should have decreased his value for everyone.
  23. nytwinsfan
    I think the Twins probaby moved Hicks' value down quite a bit at that point. You don't? You don't think it would have taken much more to get Hicks from the Twins before those two disastrous months? I sure do. I understand that baseball teams are (mostly) playing the long game. But just because you are playing the long game doesn't mean you don't consider short-term information. You just discount it because it is a small sample size. But it is still relevant information you should consider. If you have two prospects that are exactly the same, and one is struggling for a month and a half and the other is playing well (not even great), and you have no other information, are you telling me you wouldn't take the latter? Of course you would, or you'd be a horrible GM. Obviously, there are never two prospects that are exactly the same or about which you have no more information. That's not the point. The point is to isolate and demonstrate the concept that information, even small and deserving of little weight, changes a rational actor's valuation, even if only slightly on the margin. It may be that other information (e.g., Susac's swing looked better than ever and his low numbers appeared to have been driven by a low BABIP) could more than compensate for his struggles, but all else being equal, his struggles reduce his value relative to other prospects that are not struggling.
  24. nytwinsfan
    I'm assuming you are saying that Susac has a great enough track record as a prospect and the Giants were in enough need for a secondary/future catcher that his early season struggles were not enough to decrease his value anything more than a de minimis amount. You might be right about that. But as a general proposition, of course players' trade value goes down marginally when they are struggling. How much depends on the circumstances of course. Buxton and Sano's value probably only took a minor hit early this year when they struggled because everyone knew it was injury/rust related. But when Hicks struggled early last year as a 24 year old, I bet his value dipped pretty significantly. Susac might not have fallen in the Hicks category, but I'd almost guarantee his value fell some, if only marginally.
  25. nytwinsfan
    We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.
×
×
  • Create New...