Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

USAFChief

Twins Daily Contributor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    36,746

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    580

 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 USAFChief

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. USAFChief
    Not to mention an opt out ISNT really bad.
  7. 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.
  8. USAFChief
    yes.
  9. USAFChief
    This is what I would have said, if I were smarter and better spoken.
  10. USAFChief
    If plan B is better than plan A very often, you need a new planner.
  11. USAFChief
    They could have Darvish and Garrett Cole slotted 1-2 right now, had they chosen to make it happen, at reasonable cost. I do not buy the argument that there wasn’t opportunity.
  12. USAFChief
    you weren’t hoping—expecting—the Twins to make a significant rotation improvement?
  13. USAFChief
    Objection your honor, none of these facts are in evidence.
  14. USAFChief
    Carl Pohlad bought the team for $36m. It’s worth over a billion today. Is it really your contention the Twins don’t make enough profit to massively raise payroll, if ownership would choose to?
  15. USAFChief
    It’s Feb 11th and the FO has not taken a single step to improve the rotation. That’s what is nonsensical.
  16. USAFChief
    Look at the opening series rotation. How is that fixable at this point? Cobb/Lynn do nothing significant to help, they aren’t signing Arrieta, and in any case they needed to add two starters better than Berrios to be serious postseason contenders. “A competent SP” is way short of that, and I remind you even THAT hasn’t happened yet. I will not be happy with “a competent SP” even if it does happen. What’s the goal here? Keep the WC game closer?
  17. USAFChief
    I bitch and moan about the Yankees, but not because I don’t want the Twins to spend money. Holy cow, what a terrible take. I want the Twins to operate MORE like the Yankees, and I suspect I’m in the majority. I want ownership to value winning over profit.
  18. USAFChief
    Days from pitchers and catchers reporting, and from where I sit this rotation is a disaster. What an AWFUL job thus far by Falvine. It’s not mediocre, it’s not “well, maybe if you squint hard...,”. It’s awful. And let’s be realistic. Slegers, et al aren’t going to help, nor are Gonsalves/Romero. At their BEST none of them are difference makers, at least not in 2018, if ever. Hugely disappointed. Not much time/opportunity to rescue this, either. They could realistically have Cole and Darvish at the top of the rotation.
  19. 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.
  20. USAFChief
    Disappointing to say the least.
  21. 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.
  22. 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/
  23. USAFChief
    Brilliant!
  24. USAFChief
    Yes.
  25. USAFChief
    ****. *dang
×
×
  • Create New...