Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

gunnarthor

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,019

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

 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 gunnarthor

  1. gunnarthor
    Why trade Sano? The idea is you want to build around the current ML nucleus of Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, Berrios. That's your foundation. You trade other guys to help that foundation. Twins have enough parts to do that if they wanted to without taking one of those guys.
  2. gunnarthor
    So, a starting 3 WARish RF, three top 100 prospects (two in the top 40) and a high end lottery ticket? That seems a bit high for Archer. Archer's a solid pitcher but fWAR likes him a lot more than bWAR (which considered him a 1.2 WAR pitcher last year).
  3. gunnarthor
    Ignoring everything else, I do think a trade is a good idea. No way is Colorado (87 win team that lost WC game) going to move Gray. But DeGrom should be on the block. Nelson could be but Milwaukee was good last year but selling high on Nelson could make sense. If Tampa is going to trade its pitchers, Archer would be a big get. The Twins could also target guys who aren't established but who we internally rank high. Cubs got a steal with Arrieta a few years back.
  4. gunnarthor
    There are a couple problems with that idea. First, it would require the Pohlads to rewrite the AAV of starting pitchers (and bring all other contracts up, as well). With a hoard of young talent in our system, they want to keep salaries down. If pitchers like Darvish are making 30+ million (Darvish is good but he's only had one 4+ WAR season and only one season with more than 200ip), a solid #3 type like Berrios would make a killing in arb, let alone his own free agency. For Darvish, his agent would probably oppose that deal since he could 50m more in guaranteed money now rather than risking his health on a second bet at age 34 or 35. The agent is probably going to seek player opt outs after a few years (like Grienke and Cueto got) but not allow them for the team.
  5. gunnarthor
    Congrats to both Dozier and Buxton.
  6. gunnarthor
    I guess it just depends on the cost. All could be useful in some way.
  7. gunnarthor
    Sounds like Rick Anderson, doesn't he? But it makes sense, with that defense, don't walk guys. We'll see how he does. I think we're at a point where we have to grade the new FO on these moves but give them time to work out first.
  8. gunnarthor
    Yeah, I don't even think it's close. Take Hill out of Dodger stadium and his 89mph avg fastball, his flyball tendencies, his HR tendenices and it's not even a debate. You have to really love fip to think Hill is better.
  9. gunnarthor
    I disagree. You just have to accept that there will be misses. If Gonsalves went in the first round and Stewart went in the fourth, would that change how you view that draft? Pitchers are a quantity game. Stewart was definitely the right pick. I see arguments against the Jay pick but still understand it.
  10. gunnarthor
    Actually, as you know, if he's a viable reliever, he'll still be viable for his draft spot. Baseball drafts are really, really hard.
  11. gunnarthor
    That's a hell of a qualifier. Over the past two years, Hill has put up a 149 ERA+ in 246 innings while pitching in the NL in an extremely good pitching ball park. He's amassed 3.5 WAR. Santana has pitched in a hitters park in the AL the last two years and put up 8.4 WAR while throwing 393 innings with a 131 ERA+. I can't see how anyone can make a claim that Hill is an ace but Santana is not. And Hill got rocked in his first start this post-season too. Rate stats are nice but you're taking them a bit too far.
  12. gunnarthor
    Are we really convinced on Lamet? He wasn't exactly a highly thought of prospect. He pitched in one of the best pitcher's parks in the country. In 21 starts, he amassed less than 0.5 bWAR and 1.3 fWAR. His home/away splits weren't quite as big as Rich Hill but they were big. Yes, he struck out a lot of guys but he pitched in the NL. He had a low babip (that gets mentioned sometimes when we talk about Twins pitchers) and is a big flyball pitcher and gave up HR's at a worse pace than even Bartolo Colon. We really think this guy is worth two top 100 prospects?
  13. gunnarthor
    Would you rather have had him pitch or Hildenberger and Busentiz? And, frankly, our bullpen was fine at the end of the season and did ok against NY. Santana and Berrios gave up all but one run.
  14. gunnarthor
    In what world is Rich Hill an ace and Ervin Santana is not?
  15. gunnarthor
    Lock up the bats, go year to year with the arms. I wouldn't worry about a longterm thing for Berrios until he's much closer to free agency due to the injury risk for pitchers. (Unless he gives us a crazy good deal, of course).
  16. gunnarthor
    Eh, sure. The Twins were a playoff team this year, they could be a whole lot more next year. We'll have a better idea in a few months.
  17. gunnarthor
    Twins have a long history of giving over the closing job to guys who hadn't done it before - Everyday Eddie, Nathan, Perkins, Kintzler, Belisle. I imagine they will continue that trend.
  18. gunnarthor
    The Twins can't afford a contract like Scherzer's or Lester's or Verlander's at all. It wasn't about the prospects, it was cost. The Pohlads aren't going to do this. We have 20+ years of history here. The Twins won't sign these guys. Comparing the Twins to the Dodgers, who were able to keep their multiple Cy Young winner while the Twins had to trade theirs away, isn't helpful. The Cubs are paying Arrieta 15.5m, Lackey 16m and Lester 25m this year. The Yankees have two FA starters making 22m or more, this year. The Astros could take on Verlander's salary. Falvey was hired b/c ownership thinks he can create a cheap competitive team. Payroll will remain in the bottom third of the league. That means we're probably looking at 110m payroll. If we stretch it, it might get to 120 but I'd bet heavily against that. Ownership is going to use the old excuses about not signing longterm contracts to make sure they have money available for raises for our core. And then they'll let that core leave when the market resets next offseason.
  19. gunnarthor
    The Twins have Berrios who was pretty well regarded prospect and had a pretty nice season. They also have four starting pitchers in AA or above that have been top 100 guys on some list - Thorpe, Gonsalves, Romero and Stewart. Only Thorpe wasn't on a top 100 list last year although Stewart probably isn't this year. They could combine a few of those with Gordon to make a solid trade. They could see how they develop and mix them in next year. Basically, the Twins have options if they want. What they don't have the ability to do is sign Darvish. But you're main problem is suggesting that the Twins follow a blueprint of the Yankees, Dodgers, Astros or Nats. Those teams are spending way, way more than the Twins.
  20. gunnarthor
    If the Twins had more reliable back end of the rotation, they might not have been in the wild card game. They had a solid front of the rotation in Santana and Berrios. By both bWAR and fWAR, Ervin Santana would have been the second best pitcher on the Yankees. So we had a shot. They just need a better staff for a season and not a one game playoff. That can be done several ways. It's not realistic though to expect the Pohlads to pay for Darvish. You need a different plan.
  21. gunnarthor
    These kind of posts don't help. Everyone wants to win and the suggestion is that those who want someone less than Darvish don't.
  22. gunnarthor
    I'm not sure that you're second assumption is right. Yes, I think you're (generally) right about a guy like Darvish helping if he's not hurt and a Chatwood might not help even if healthy but you are way underrating the longterm harm the Twins would face if a Darvish contract blows up on them the way Hughes' contract did. What if Darvish gets his 7/175m contract and busts after year two? The Twins owe him 125m more yet get nothing out of that? Every year they hope that they can get some good starts out of him only to send him out for a Phil Huges-like run and then return him to the DL? He'll take away starts from young guys and he'll be worth negative WAR but because we still owe him that money, he'll get his chances. That would be a much bigger problem than if Chatwood's 4y/48m deal doesn't work.
  23. gunnarthor
    It's a "win" because the Twins didn't sell Dozier for 60 cents on the dollar. They could still trade Dozier (or a different MI) this year and get a better offer. If they had moved Dozier, they (likely) couldn't have. I'd also point out that the Yankees ace couldn't make it out of the first inning. Pitching is rough all around. Kyle Gibson would have been arguably the Angels best pitcher last year. So while the back of the rotation isn't set and the front doesn't have a true ace, we do have pieces in place and the ability to get something in free agency as well (or through a trade).
  24. gunnarthor
    But we have a good pitch framer now ...
  25. gunnarthor
    I like the idea of Chatwood a lot more than Lynn. He's younger and won't cost as much. Huge advantages. He's not exactly Phil Hughes but the narrative about getting out of a certain park is the same. I think he could be a solid #4 type (a good thing). He'd still probably get 12m/year though.
×
×
  • Create New...