Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! Click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Taildragger8791

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,140

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 Taildragger8791

  1. Taildragger8791
    I appreciate the internal perspective you give, Jack. From the outside we only see the field staffs and the big guys in the front office, so that's what we can base evaluations off of. It's tough to see the changes that have taken place at the middle and lower levels since they aren't that visible. As a result it feels more like shuffling deck chairs than actual change when the front office is rotating the same names around for a couple of decades. Hopefully the changes you mentioned start proving themselves out at the bigger picture level. And hopefully the upcoming change in leadership will push us in a positive direction.
  2. Taildragger8791
    This is what I'm hoping for as well. We know JRM can work behind the dish so hopefully Garver can take a bigger share of the starts there (assuming health is not the issue), and JRM can find at bats elsewhere on those days. He has to show he can be the #1 guy because I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about JRM bouncing back and holding down the spot next year. We may need him to play 60%-70% of games at some point next year unless Suzuki is extended. Until he does it I don't see how you can count on it.
  3. Taildragger8791
    I was figuring it was a difference of more like 35 games, if you're talking about getting 40% vs 65% of the starts over 137 regular season games. Not the end of the world, but that doesn't seem insignificant for developing at a skill position.
  4. Taildragger8791
    That's unfortunate but it makes sense. I saw he was still in the lineup most days and his bat is coming along. I just worry his ability to play the catcher position isn't advancing at the same pace and will ultimately hold him back. He doesn't hit enough right now for a DH/1B type so I'm just trying to figure out what a reasonable timeline is for him.
  5. Taildragger8791
    Jack, the issue you skipped over is the disconnect between minor league success and major league results. I think many would agree the Twins have done better lately at identifying and bringing in young talent, thus the strong farm system. But at some point, to borrow from Mike Zimmer of the Vikings, we transition to a "don't tell me about the labor, show me the baby" attitude in which on-field results with the big club is what matters. We can talk about the prospects and projections until the cows come home but at some point there must be results, and at best there's only been fleeting glimpses of it. The repeated struggles of young talented players gives the impression that our lovable team is somehow holding back talent instead of maximizing it. We certainly haven't overachieved at any aspect. Sure the chat response was hyperbole. But I don't think it's unfair to criticize an organization that has developed and retained very few players with sustained MLB value in the last 10 years. This next year or two could change the conversation and build a lot of equity for the system, but I hope you understand that it's hard to give credit ahead of time when considering recent results.
  6. Taildragger8791
    Garver has by far the closest thing to an adequate bat between AA/AAA catchers but only started 40% of games at catcher in AA. I don't see how that changes much in Rochester with JRM and Paulino there. Not sure how they'll do that this year and it may be tough again next year if JRM and/or Turner are both needing AAA time. If they really think he can be an MLB catcher I'd think they'd find a way to get him more starts at his future position. It gives the impression they don't really believe in him as a catcher. Do he not have the chops for the position defensively? Is this a Josmil Pinto type of situation?
  7. Taildragger8791
    Pretty sure Jimmer was saying Escobar on his own is a non-factor when considering who is the future starting SS, and separately that Gordon is too far away to be counted on as well. He wasn't suggesting that Gordon is going to displace Escobar or anybody.
  8. Taildragger8791
    Seconded. I don't know why some people are so bent on trading him. I think he's going to be a great "glue" piece that does a bit of everything to help win games.
  9. Taildragger8791
    Found Molitor's TD account. Do you have to list Winston Smith as an alias on legal paperwork?
  10. Taildragger8791
    People act like a little patience is all that was needed for Carlos Gomez, but he didn't click until his 7th year in the majors and his 3rd team. He also hasn't been very good since he left Milwaukee. I seriously hope the Twins can apply some lessons learned to avoid that slow of development again. Everyone remarked about how rushed Gomez was at the time and how it set him back. It follows that using AAA is appropriate considering Buxton has spent less than a season between AA and AAA. I don't understand how we went from worrying about rushing guys to wanting every talented player in the majors today, sink or swim. Patience is required since there is no other option and he's still really young. Maybe it'll click in a year or two. But how long can a club wait? Gomez was mentioned a lot so I ask this: If you had the knowledge right now that it will take another 5 years of poor hitting before you get to enjoy about 3-4 great years, is that a process you want to calmly wait through? I envision this board and the fans getting awfully restless well before then. Edit: Typo
  11. Taildragger8791
    Fangraphs had a solid article on Max's pitch recognition, evaluating his swing mechanics on different types of pitches to evaluate why he's been so successful. Pretty promising for his future. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-case-study-in-pitch-recognition-with-max-kepler/
  12. Taildragger8791
    I was clearly referring to this season. 2015 was a good year for him, no doubt, but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by arbitrarily averaging last year (coincidentally his best year) and this year together. This year, in 7 out of 14 games he's given up 4+ runs in 6.1 or fewer innings. In another 3 he was saved by the bullpen in the 6th or 7th to keep him just out of that range. Sure, if we're being pedantic that isn't "most" but it's close enough that I don't otherwise see what the point is you're trying to make. I'm not saying Gibson is terrible or should be outright dumped. I'm just saying that it's fair to put him on the hot seat because there is significant room for improvement if they can find a replacement.
  13. Taildragger8791
    We shouldn't ignore 2013 where he had 10 starts, with mostly rough results. The fact he's regressed since 2015 is a signal that this is what Gibson is. Most likely something more like 2014. Expecting his best season to become his baseline isn't all that reasonable. The reason I say it's misleading because it ignores the innings component. He gives up a lot of good contact and gets knocked out after 5-6 innings regularly, putting his team on their heels. Calling every game with 3 runs or less "good" is painting with a broad brush. Reviewing his game log I'd call 3-4 of his games no-doubt good (7-8 innings with 3 or fewer runs didn't give up a lot of runners). The other 3-run or fewer games he still gave up 8, 9, 10 runners, went only 5-6 innings, and generally put pressure on the defense, bullpen, and offense to all pick him up. I have hope for Gibson but I'm not thoughtlessly slotting him in as my #4 and moving on. Their needs to be a contingency plan for him if he continues pitching to a 4.50-5.00 ERA into next year. I could see him having better results with a gold glove infield defense to vacuum up the ground balls, but considering the adventures at 3B and SS right now I don't think he has that luxury.
  14. Taildragger8791
    The issue with league-wide stats is 1/3 to 1/2 of teams aren't playoff caliber and drag down the numbers. If you're looking to compete you need to look at the teams in contention and match up with what they have. I don't have time to research today but I'm guessing they don't fill most of their staff with 4.31+ ERAs. On a good team even a number 5 should give you a chance to win most nights. Gibson does that every 3rd or 4th start, maybe, but most nights is giving up 4 runs over 5-6 innings and leaving with runners on base. Hard to win those games (unless you're playing the Indians and have a Max Kepler).
  15. Taildragger8791
    That's a misleading way to look at it because he often gets pulled after 5 or 6 innings when he's struggling, limiting the damage. 4 earned runs is workable if you go 7-8 innings, but hurts when it's only over 5 or 6 and he's turning it over to the bullpen with runners on base. He's made it through 7 innings 3 times this year. He's a borderline #4 or #5 on a good team when he's going well and has a good defense to vacuum up all the contact he gives up. But he hasn't reached that level consistently other than a decent 2015. A winning team would have a plan for 4 pitchers better than him and be keeping an eye out for a replacement in the event he turns into a human Juggs machine again.
  16. Taildragger8791
    I don't think you have a choice but to go into next year with those rotation candidates, since you don't want to block prospects, but I'm not going to pretend that isn't a rocky rotation either. You'd be fortunate to get 2 pitchers under a 4.00 ERA and one pitcher under 3.50. Santiago is a wildcard but we'll get a good look this year to evaluate him. But Gibson and your #5 are likely to be adventures who could need replacing, and you'll need another prospect or two ready at that point. That could cost a lot of games while it shuffles out. Next year is a big development year for our pitching, similar to what our hitting has been going through lately.
  17. Taildragger8791
    Other than a hot stretch for the first couple of weeks in June he's been a disaster. In July he hit .191/.219/.221. Woof. He could bounce back next season but I wouldn't bet the position's future on him, Garver, or Turner being ready in April. I think you have to pick up one half-decent catcher for next season, even if it's resigning Suzuki for a year. We saw what happens earlier this year when you just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall hoping something sticks. Most of the time you just end up with a mess at your feet. Good teams build in insurance and make players earn their job.
  18. Taildragger8791
    That doesn't sound like someone I want to slot into a starting position, however. There needs to be at least one competent catcher on the roster to stabilize things in the event Murphy doesn't bounce back. The Twins need to stop putting lottery tickets into can't fail situations.
  19. Taildragger8791
    Chargois reportedly has three above average pitches, including a power changeup and breaking ball. I don't think that's the issue.
  20. Taildragger8791
    Mystefied as to how Chargois is still in AAA with an ERA of almost 1.
  21. Taildragger8791
    I don't remember Dozier having a slight southern drawl before. Did he pick that up on a recent southern road trip or have I just never heard him speak before?
  22. Taildragger8791
    Got you with the stealth edit, Jimmer.
  23. Taildragger8791
    Starter has to complete 5 innings. He needed one more out. Doesn't make much sense that a reliever can get it for pitching to 3 guys instead though. Stealth edit.
  24. Taildragger8791
    This gave me a flashback to yesterday when I was doing some online training. A couple of pop quiz questions provided only true/false answers but it wasn't a clean true or false situation. After answering it comes back "It depends." with a long explanation. Wanted to throw the monitor out the window. Can't believe someone got paid to write that.
  25. Taildragger8791
    Aren't ads based off your previous browsing and search history? Uhhh...
×
×
  • Create New...