Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

USAFChief

Twins Daily Contributor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    36,728

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    580

 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 USAFChief

  1. USAFChief
    The clip had nothing to do with it. And yes, we know.
  2. USAFChief
    It’s a 40 man spot that now wont go to an acquisition that can help the Twins. THIS is the plan for one rotation spot. Make no mistake. If (when) he’s cut during spring, there goes the rotation upgrade.
  3. USAFChief
    Did you get your passport in a timely manner?
  4. USAFChief
    How is this not bad? This is, right now, the only starting pitching move they’ve made.
  5. USAFChief
    No they did not. And Garret Cole could realistically be slotted in to start game two, right behind Darvish, with Berrios at three, and Santana at 4 by ?mid-May? We get Kyle Gibson game 2.
  6. USAFChief
    Concur with above, great article. One point: Is it me, or is it rather telling they feel the need to offer a giveaway on the home opener? Shouldn't that already be a sellout?
  7. USAFChief
    Just my opinion, but entering the season with that staff is basically throwing up a white flag. That is not a staff capable of competing. Ever.
  8. USAFChief
    But is he in the best shape of his life?
  9. USAFChief
    how often does that work? Don’t need exact numbers, a ballpark estimate is fine. Also...are they usually stale by that point? Edit: asking for a friend
  10. USAFChief
    First, Bird, thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. As you know, the respect is mutual. But my point is...IMO it doesn't matter whether I give them "credit." I'm not doing that, by the way, but even if I do...how many MLB wins does that mean? Or if you, or Nick, give them the benefit of the doubt here? What does that amount to? At the end of the day, they need to add players, and Darvish, IMO, represented a real opportunity...one they themselves seemed pretty intent on not that long ago. I've never said "Darvish or bust." And if by opening day, my honest assessment is "they've really addressed the rotation well," then I'll be the first to say so. Until then...they get no credit from me. Whether they tried or not. In the immortal words of my age-compatriot Yoda, "There is no try. There is only do or not do.
  11. USAFChief
    I don't think there's even a 1 percent chance of Romero breaking camp with the Twins.
  12. USAFChief
    What I'm saying is, I've heard this song and dance before. "We tried" has never won a MLB game, and never will. It didn't have to be Darvish. But "they made an offer" is ... meaningless. It has zero value. It's words.
  13. USAFChief
    i don't really care about setting the bar, or who offered what, or who didn't, or "giving credit" for trying. Get it done, or it's meaningless.
  14. USAFChief
    Nick...I didn't bring up Gimenez, you did.
  15. USAFChief
    Falvine wanted Gimenez and couldn't get THAT done? Even I don't think they're that incompetent.
  16. USAFChief
    Well, I agree. Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, how does it go awry? They end up paying for the end years of a long contract?
  17. USAFChief
    Skipping the 5th starter is pretty much a thing of the past anyway.
  18. USAFChief
    Nope, don’t see the corallary, nor do I see player opt out options as very bad for teams. In fact, were I a GM, I’d be inclined to encourage them, in hopes the players do well enough to exercise them.
  19. USAFChief
    Sorry Ash, I disagree. Strongly. You’re ignoring the negatives of not signing him at all, and strongly overrating the guaranteed years 3-6 that nobody really wants anyway. Not one person would be opposed to $2/42. But if it’s that because he DID TOO WELL.. now it’s a bad deal?
  20. USAFChief
    Again...in that case you’re in the EXACT SAME POSITION as if there was no opt out clause. Paying for years 3-6. Actually, you’re most likely in a BETTER position, since you probably paid less for a contract with an opt out.
  21. USAFChief
    And if he does well, the Twins are off the hook for the risk of years 3-6. Which, BTW, is many people’s big hang up in the first place. And they could still resign him, even if he does opt out.
  22. USAFChief
    As opposed to being GUARANTEED to be stuck with a declining and not super effective pitcher if there is no opt out? Again...the only real negative possibility is he exceeds expectations and departs. And I don’t see that as much of a negative.
  23. USAFChief
    Not to mention an opt out ISNT really bad.
  24. USAFChief
    I’m sorry, but I just don’t see any way to view any part of Santana’s injury as a positive. None. Including the 2019 option vesting. Also, I completely don’t understand any consternation over the opt out. Any. Who here would’ve been opposed to 2/$42 for Darvish? That’s what you’d have if he opts out, and he’s not doing that unless he’s pitched well enough he’s confident he’ll get more than what’s left. And I don’t see how having him for two good years, and then losing him, is worse than not having him for those two good years in the first place.
  25. USAFChief
    What’s the worst case scenario? The player isn’t performing, and continues on with the contract, just as if there WASNT an opt out clause? Because that’s what would happen. And if the player DOES opt out, you’ve gotten two years of him exceeding expectations and now don’t have to pay for the last couple years of the original contract. And I needn’t remind you, those last couple years of a long contract are cited here daily as the big scary boogie-monster to be avoided at all costs.
×
×
  • Create New...