Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

alarp33

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by alarp33

  1. alarp33
    Should the Twins sign any of their young guys to the most team-friendly deal in the league? Debating whether Sano would sign for $7 million over 5 years? Is this real?
  2. alarp33
    Again, neither Hicks or Gomez were ever on the level of Buxton as a prospect. These comparisons really need to stop this year. They all spent their age 19 seasons in A Ball (buxton a + high a) Buxton: .334/.424/.520 Hicks: .251/.353/.382 Gomez: .275/.331/.376 Buxton's 2014 was a wash due to injury, but he dominated AA/AAA in his 72 games last season. The success he had last year in the minors at 21, was never even close to being matched by Gomez in his MILB career, and Hicks only matched as a 22 year old in AA. Was Hicks really "stunted" by starting 2013 in MN, or was he just not ready AND not that good/ can't hit Left handed? Gomez really took 4 full seasons to recover from being put in Majors at 22, or was Gardenhire not always the best with young guys, and his power didn't develop till he matured?
  3. alarp33
    Here's my issue: Danny Santana does not look ready to face MLB pitching, and isn't a Center Fielder. Always bet on Talent. Buxton is far more talented than Hicks, I've seen no evidence to suggest he can't improve at the Major League level and would need to be in AAA to do so. Would you rather have him working with Molitor and Brunansky every day, or the AAA staff? He very well may not hit from Day 1. But his glove and speed is more important than anything Danny Santana can provide. These should be the Twins 2 questions: Will Buxton be a better player for 10 years if he spends April and May in Rochester? I highly highly doubt it Are the Twins in 2016 more likely to win games with Danny Santana playing CF in April and May? NOO
  4. alarp33
    If Santana opens the season as the starting CFer they should just board up Target Field and shut it down.
  5. alarp33
    We haven't, but that's fair enough. I don't expect you to be critical of your employer. My mind has been made up over 19 years of results, I'm not making some snap judgement on someone who is new to the job. As for my signature, he said it, not me.
  6. alarp33
    Maybe its not fair to point where he started, but its fair to say he does not complement TR well... Ie; his lack of knowledge or understanding of advanced metrics. From the outside, I see him as more of a TR clone, minus the years of scouting experience.
  7. alarp33
    A Yale alum in Theo Epstein is a tad different than someone who evaluates pitchers by W-L and couldn't tell you what BABIP stood for. Ignoring all of that, handing a GM job to the 2nd in command of an unsuccessful operation wouldn't seem to be progress at all.
  8. alarp33
    Not Rob Antony, someone with a PR/media relations background.
  9. alarp33
    Count me in the camp that has completely written off Vargas. So many holes in that swing, reminds me of pitching to a toddler in the backyard, you have to try and throw it at their bat in order for them to make contact.
  10. alarp33
    While I do agree that getting to the playoffs and giving yourself a chance is very important... I don't think you can easily discount the fact that they were getting to the playoffs by winning the worst division in baseball. The starting pitching behind Santana was never "World Series contender" level. Didn't Brian Duensing start Game 1 of one of those playoff series?
  11. alarp33
    This and any move is to win baseball games at the major league level. Not to appease South Korea.
  12. alarp33
    In the 24 seasons since, they have won 1 single 5 game playoff series. In the past 11 seasons they have won 0 playoff GAMES. Forget winning the WS, does that sound better? The only teams to have not won a playoff game in last 11 years; Minnesota Atlanta Seattle Cincinnati San Diego
  13. alarp33
    People who look for reasons to defend the Pohlad's for not spending money. A fairly common refrain you will read here, and other places is that they cannot spend more money because they do not have a TV deal like many other teams. While they will never have a deal like the LA teams, etc... it does appear the one they signed was pretty terrible for the team. My point is, if that is St. Peter's job, why doesn't he get more blame for that?
  14. alarp33
    http://www.raysindex.com/2014/10/rays-next-tv-deal-could-be-worth-80-100-million-per-year.html It's also been a pretty common refrain from the Pohlad Pocket Protectors.
  15. alarp33
    Andrew Friedman, Theo Epstein, Mark Shapiro, etc. Aren't they getting like $15 million this year only? That's not a market deal. It may have been the day it was signed, but its bad business to put yourself in a non-negotiable long term deal like it sounds like they have. Rob Antony was just piggybacking on the front office/ broken system talk. I would compare him to Bill Smith, but I don't think that would be fair to Bill.
  16. alarp33
    I don't have a list in front of me, but don't most teams now have a president of baseball operations, or a President that does have baseball experience? Why does St. Peter get a pass for the TV deal that we keep hearing is way under market value, I assume he was the one who negotiated it? The sooner they replace Rob Antony, the better
  17. alarp33
    The biggest issue with this front office's free agent "strategy" is the middle tier market, or washed up veterans seem to be the only place they shop. There is absolutely no value in signing a Santana, Nolasco, Pelfrey, Correia, etc. Santana and Nolasco were #4 starters, paid to be #2/3 starters. At best, they eat innings on a bad team. At worst, their contracts are unmovable, and they take rotation spots from younger, more deserving guys. You either take a flyer on diamonds in the rough like Hughes (young, upside), or overpay for stars. They've obviously never done the latter, and other than Hughes (which they screwed up 1 winter later) I can't think of an example where they took a shot on someone looking to rebuild their value.
  18. alarp33
    Success? If that is the tried and true method, maybe it is time to change things up. Seeing as they have not won a playoff game in 11 years, and have won 1 playoff series in 25 years.
  19. alarp33
    Not sure if you are understanding how stats work. Of course it shows both sides of the equation. I thought that was obvious. https://thepowerrank.com/cluster-luck/ The Tigers were as "unlucky" as the Twins were "lucky"
  20. alarp33
    Wow, lots of words there to tell me Pujols has had a better career than Chris Davis. You weren't ever going to get any argument from me on that. "Pujols had a way better (HOF) track record and that contract looks terrible now." Maybe I was nitpicking, but my initial issue was how this was phrased... I simply pointed out the contracts aren't comparable at all. If Albert Pujols had signed a 7 year contract at age 30, for $17 million/year w/ deferrals tacked on at the end, it would have looked great. Albert Pujols contract looks terrible now, because it always looked terrible. They gave a 32 year old who had started to enter his decline 10 years and well over $200 million. The Angels will pay a 40-41 year old Pujols $59 million in 2021-2022. Kind of puts $42 million over 15 years into perspective. Chris Davis' contract ends when he is 36 years old. There will almost certainly be a decline at the end, my simple point was they may get enough value during his age 30-33 seasons that it doesn't really matter. The contract was structured nicely.
  21. alarp33
    $42 million spread over 20 years is an insignificant amount to MLB owners, so ignoring it is more than fair. In no way will those deferred payments effect the Orioles future payrolls. Looks like we're in agreement that there is no comparison to the Pujols contract, but you cherry picked career stats. You seem impressed by the last 3 years of an injured Pujols putting up 116, 126, 118 OPS+. But you write off Davis by using his career numbers, which were bad in Texas. His last 4 years his OPS+ is 121, 168, 96, 146. He has been a significantly better hitter than Angels Albert Pujols.
  22. alarp33
    I'm not sure I'm understanding the Pujols comp at all. How about looking at it this way. Pujols is 36, he will make $165 million over the next 6 years. Davis is 30, he will make $119 over the next 7. When Davis is 36 he will have 1 year and $17 million left on his deal (and a few million/ year in deferrals) That's not a valid comp at all to simply say "Pujols contract looks bad, so does Davis!" I'm not sure any team in baseball, even the Cubs, have a current "8-10 year window". Let alone the Indians. Kluber, Carrasco, Salazar all are under team control for 3-4 years I believe. Lindor is going to be the SS for 6 years. Where do you get this 8-10 year window? If I'm a GM and have 3 healthy, front of the rotation starters... my window is right now, because we all know how quickly that can flame out.
  23. alarp33
    That's not how many works, they aren't paying him $23 million a year. Here's an article that explains deferred money for you. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-deferred-money-in-the-chris-davis-deal/ 30-37 = 8 seasons. It was a 7 year contract, expires when he is 36.
  24. alarp33
    1) It's not $42 million using Net Present Value calculation 2) Pujols was 2 years older when he signed a contract that was 3 years longer and for quite a bit more money. 3) Fangraphs had him worth $52 million in 2013 and $44.8 million in 2015. So calling them just good years is a bit of an understatement. 4) Yes, power hitters generally don't age well, but he's just about to play his age 30 season. My point is the way this contract is structured, the risk is not nearly as great as it may appear if you just look at "7/$161". He gives you even 3-4 good seasons it's worth it. It's the exact gamble a team like the Indians who have 3 potentially elite pitchers locked up for the next 3-4 years should be making.
  25. alarp33
    That's not really how stats like this work. Here's an example I read elsewhere that explains cluster in the simplest way ever. If the Twins get 9 hits in a game, all singles. If those 9 hits all come in the 4th inning, they would likely score 7 runs. If those 9 hits come in separate innings, they would likely get shut out. Cluster luck accounts for this. Players in general, or managers, don't possess some kind of special skill to make sure all their hits come in the same inning. Highly inflated cluster numbers, or RISP numbers, generally even out to the mean over time. The Twins may very well get "lucky" again... but they may also have a much better team offense, yet be on the bad side of "cluster luck" and score less runs than last year.
×
×
  • Create New...