Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

USAFChief

Twins Daily Contributor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    35,927

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    578

 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 USAFChief

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. USAFChief
    Nick...I didn't bring up Gimenez, you did.
  4. USAFChief
    Falvine wanted Gimenez and couldn't get THAT done? Even I don't think they're that incompetent.
  5. 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?
  6. USAFChief
    Skipping the 5th starter is pretty much a thing of the past anyway.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. USAFChief
    Not to mention an opt out ISNT really bad.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. USAFChief
    Disappointing to say the least.
  16. USAFChief
    Addressing the rotation in a manner befitting a team looking to win now would be a win now move. Adding a RH hitting fourth OFer would be a win now move.
  17. USAFChief
    Insurance on player contracts is getting rarer, is extremely costly (especially for pitchers), and almost never runs longer than 3 yrs at a time. Here's one article on contract insurance, you can find more easily: https://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/02/understanding-the-business-of-baseball-insurance-on-player-contracts.html/
  18. USAFChief
    Yes.
  19. USAFChief
    "Free beer tomorrow"
  20. USAFChief
    It would be inexplicable NOT to pour pretty much everything you have into this opportunity. Sign Darvish, trade for Archer. Add a RH hitting 4th OFer. See how serious KC is about dumping Herrera. Go for it.
  21. USAFChief
    Outside of a good AAA season in 2017, Garver's minor league career is pretty pedestrian. He's not going to be an offensive force in MLB, if you ask me.
  22. USAFChief
    I have long been of the opinion a good RH hitting 4th OFer would be a huge help to the offense. Granite does nothing for me. I like Bautista's chances of a bounce back best, hitting primarily against LH pitching.
  23. USAFChief
    signing Darvish prevents none of those players from impacting the 2018 Twins, if they earn a shot. what it DOES do is lesson the chances of DEPENDING on them, and/or adds TO them. There's room on a staff of 12 or 13, with 20 or so making an appearance, for all the good pitching you can find.
  24. USAFChief
    Sandy Koufax disagrees.
  25. USAFChief
    Performance incentives are not allowable under the CBA. Playing time incentives are ok, but not performance incentives.
×
×
  • Create New...