Cap'n Piranha
-
Posts
4,719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
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 Cap'n Piranha
-
I don't know if an IL stint will fix it. But I do know that 7 weeks of playing in only half the games on the schedule sure didn't.
-
If indeed we're not going to get much in return for trading him right now, doesn't that pretty much prove my original point? That Martin should be well down the Twins' list of prospects, and if you can find a team that is still somewhat optimistic about him, you should trade him in a heartbeat, even if you have to recoup significantly less value than you would have had you flipped him last July?
-
If only the Twins had done this 6 weeks ago, Buxton could theoretically have been back at full strength now, as opposed to still not being at full strength.
-
Are you sure that this is Martin's low? What if this is actually Martin's high? What about his current results as a 23 year old repeating AA screams breakout candidate to you?
-
Your math is wrong--he needs to be on the 40 man next year. If you think he's going to be an outfielder, then that means he won't have a starting role until at least 3 of Buxton, Larnach, Kiriloff, Celestino, and Kepler are gone (and that doesn't even mention Emmanuel Rodriguez, who is almost 4 years younger, and is putting up an 1,000+ OPS in a pitcher's league--granted it is two levels down, but at this pace, he'll get promoted soon, and be only a level behind, despite the massive age difference). All 5 of the Buxton, Larnach, Kiriloff, Celestino, and Kepler group have at least 2 years of control, and other than Buxton and Kepler, cheap control. At this point, Austin Martin is the definition of excess, and should absolutely be bait to return players ready to help this year.
-
I mean, to be fair, 2019 was Steer's first year with wood bats (and he still hit 4 homers to Martin's career 6). He then didn't get to play in 2020. So it's pretty disingenuous to say Steer wasn't a HR hitter until last year. In 2021, Martin had an XBH every 13 AB's. This year it's one every 18. At this point saying Martin could take off in the power department is pure unadulterated wishcasting, and is not based in any kind of trend. Why is being in the Twins organization a reason to explain lack of performance? Are you saying the Twins are much better at developing hitters than the Blue Jays? How does that make sense given that Martin was better with the Jays org than the Twins org? If it legitimately takes almost a full year for the Twins to make changes to one of their top prospects in the minors, then either the coach should be fired, or clearly Martin is not able to understand what the coaches are getting him to do--which is it?
-
When I say 50 cents on the dollar, what I mean is the value you get for him will be much less than the value the Twins had to give up to get him last year. Do you think the Twins could trade Austin Martin and say, Blayne Enlow for Frankie Montas right now? Austin Martin's value is clearly lower now than it was 11 months ago--to say otherwise is to simply not be tethered in reality. As such, if you trade him, you will have to take less value for him than you would have otherwise gotten last year--thus, 50 cents on the dollar. Of course the Twins can hang on to him, and hope he rebounds, but if he doesn't turn it around, and now it's 2024 and he's a below average 25 year old repeating AAA, his value is even lower, and now you're either releasing him outright, or trading him for 10 cents on the dollar. None of this is to say I don't like Martin--I hope he can turn it around. But when it comes to MiLB players I've never seen, but have meaningful track records, I am going to lean heavily on the stats. And the stats tell me that for whatever reason, Austin Martin looks like a career AAAA player at best right now. Given that there is no need for him to be part of the Twins plans in the next 2-3 years, given the number of players the Twins control for the next 2-3 years, I'd rather recoup some value now, rather than risk getting almost no value for him in a year or two. Perhaps that will look really dumb. Perhaps it will look really smart. Only time will tell.
-
I just...come on man, you can't objectively think this. I get having a prospect you love, and are excited about, but a non-biased look at what Martin is doing this year is red flag to the max. A few counterpoints If Martin is regressing to the mean, that's a huge problem. His OPS is down 12%, while the league he plays in is up 5%. in 2021, his OPS was better than all but one team. This year it's worse than all but one team. If Martin is actually a league average AA player at the age of 23 (repeating), that is all kinds of bad news in terms of the status of his top prospect ranking. Correa currently has a .751 OPS--definitely not in the .700 range. It's June. There's no more slow start logic to apply anymore. If you look at Martin's splits, he did have a better OPS in May (.711) than April (.675), but if that's warming up, he's cooling right back down with his .602 so far in June Arraez was inndeed at .733 last year--but as a 23 year old in MLB. In other words, at the same age (Martin's birthday is actually about 3 weeks before Arraez on the calendar), Arraez outperformed Martin's current OPS by almost 8%, despite being in MLB compared to AA. I did compare them both in the same age, that age being 23. If you want to do age 22, Arraez still outperformed Martin, and it was still Arraez in MLB and Martin in AA. I don't know why I keep having to say this--LUIS ARRAEZ, AT THE SAME AGE, PERFORMED BETTER THAN MARTIN, AT A FAR MORE DIFFICULT LEVEL Austin Martin's career OPS is .757--not close to .800. He has been above an .800 OPS once in his career, and that was an .807 in 56 games for the Jay's AA team last year I'm not speaking of Asutin Martin's ceiling--I'm speaking of whether or not he is a top 11 non-catcher position player for the Twins in the next 2-3 years. Considering Buxton, Kepler, Larnach, Kiriloff, Celestino, Miranda, Lewis, and Arraez are all clearly better with cheap control or newly-signed long-term deals, he's at best 9th. Add in Kepler, Polanco, Steer, Gordon, and Palacios, and he might be as low as 14th; is the Twins' best use of Austin Martin to have him be the third guy called up from AAA for the next 2-3 years, or trade him for rotation/bullpen help? You can not care about his OPS all you want, but OBP is half of that calculation, and his OBP is currently only good at AA (it's worse than what Luis Arraez had at the same age, but in the majors). When you can't hit for power, and you increasingly can't hit for average, MLB pitchers are going to attack, and not give up walks; take away Austin Martin's walks, and what exactly does he do well at the plate? You state that you agree that the way Martin is playing right now he would not be an OBP machine. You then immediately say you think he would be a top 20 OBP machine in MLB now. You understand those can't both be true, right? Why exactly do you think Martin's performance would get dramatically better when moving up not one, but two levels, one of which comprises the largest gap in performance in all of professional baseball. Luis Arraez in 2018, in his first look at AA, at the age of 21, OPS'd .710. That is still better than what Martin is OPS'ing this year, in his second year at AA, at the age of 23. You really think that's a comparison you want to make as to why Martin and Arraez are good comps?
-
For a more serious response--when the Twins acquired Martin, he was a global top 50 prospect. Unless something drastically changes in the next month, he will probably be dropped off most lists. A 23 year old repeating AA and getting dramatically worse while the rest of the league gets better (Martin had an OPS of .780 in Wichita last year, compared to .685 this year. In 2021, 4 teams in AA South had an OPS above .750, this year it's 8 ) is not going to remain on top 100 lists. Given that you have to put him on the 40 man at the end of the year, and the Twins already have too many quality prospects, trading him is a legit option, especially if you don't really have a place on the team for him coming up. The Twins will keep 2 catcher, 6 infielders, and 5 outfielders--over the next two years, here's how that breaks down; C--Jeffers, ? (the Twins could try and extend Sanchez, or promote one of their prospects) 1B--Kiriloff, Miranda, Arraez 2B--Polanco (3 more years of control), Arraez SS--Lewis, Palacios 3B--Urshela (final year of Arb), Miranda, Arraez LF--Kiriloff, Larnach CF--Buxton, Celestino RF--Kepler (two more years of control), Larnach Flex--Gordon That's already 15 guys, meaning two of them have to go before you even consider adding Martin to the 40 man. Even if those 2 were Urshela and Sanchez, you still have to replace Sanchez' spot, which means at the end of this year the Twins are getting rid of Urshela and....who? Probably Kepler, but that still leaves 5 quality options in the outfield, not to mention Gordon. Maybe the Twins decide to go cheap, and get rid of Urshela, Polanco, and Kepler--you're still at 12 guys before mentioning Gordon, Steer, or anyone else the Twins decide to bring in with the money they free up there; those 3 make probably $23M next year, which is two thirds of the way to keeping Correa, or signing a top flight bat. As such, it just makes way more sense to me to use Martin as a cornerstone of a trade to a team that thinks they can fix him for rotation or bullpen help. If you have to bite the bullet on his reduced value, I think that makes sense right now, given that he is probably still your best trade chip, given his draft position and replaceability within the organization.
-
Are we talking about the same Austin Martin? Martin has been 23 literally this entire year, and is OPSing .685--that is lower than 9 of the 10 teams in the Texas League are OPSing. His average is .247, which is lower than 8 of 10 teams. Even his best skill (OBP) is only third amongst 10 teams. If you're going to be 23, at AA, and a global top 100 prospect all at the same time, you have to be better than the average of every team on at least one of those. The speed is nice and all, but speed is useless while sitting on the bench. The positional flexibility is nice and all, but he's behind Lewis, Polanco, Arraez, Palacios, Miranda (and potentially Steer) in the infield, and behind Buxton, Celestino, Larnach, Kepler, and Kiriloff in the outfield, to say nothing of Gordon, Urshela, Garlick, or Correa if he opts in or the Twins sign him long-term. That puts him at best 11th on the the Twins position player pecking list (assuming you put him ahead of Gordon, Steer, Garlick, and Correa is gone); that's the cutoff since there will only be 13 position players, and two will be catchers. The comp to Arraez is actually not particularly great--here are Arraez' stats in his age 23 season; .321/.364/.402/.766. Clearly better than Martin's current slash line of .247/.361/.324/.685, especially when you consider that Luis put up his line for the Twins, not the Wind Surge. Your claim that Martin would be a top 20 OBP machine in the majors right now is patently insane, since he's currently tied for 31st in the Texas league for OBP--are you really stating Martin would perform significantly better in MLB if promoted today than he's currently performing in AA?
-
Steer is clearly passing Martin in prospect standing right now—Steer is only one year older, and is decidedly outperforming Martin, at a higher level. The Twins might need to trade Martin for 50 cents on the dollar at the deadline.
-
Source? Had these young people received a Covid shot? If so, how was the cause determined? With the lingering fatigue, is there any evidence linking that to Covid, or is it a post hoc, ergo propter hoc assessment?
-
Fascinating choice of sources--your first is a study done among VA patients; how many people 17 and under do you think are in the VA system, which is of course what I was correcting you on. This source is also almost a year old (it's from July 2021), and as such predates the Omicron and other subsequent variants. Given the increased transmissibility of those strains, this source seems out-of-date at best, incorrect at worst. Here's a quotation pulled directly from your second source 'Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.”' So what I can gather here is that you have no response to the contention that shots are largely unnecessary and ineffective in youth age groups (due to the fact that there's very little Covid occurring in those groups--it's hard to reduce something that barely exists), and you agree that the shots do not reduce transmission.
- 103 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
This seems to not be getting through to people. Getting the Covid shot does not reduce the risk of contracting or spreading Covid. While it will reduce the likelihood of needing medical care, both routine and life-saving, if the goal is to reduce the number of people with Covid, and to minimize the spread of Covid, a policy that completely bars healthy but non-jabbed people, while fully welcoming jabbed but potentially infected people is inane. Unless of course, the goal is something else.
- 103 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
This is just not rooted in reality. According to the CDC, there have been 1,086 Covid deaths in those 17 and under since the beginning the pandemic (for the sake of this, we'll assume that all of those were actually caused by Covid, even though it's entirely possible Covid was simply a comorbidity, and not the cause of death); that is in a population of 73M (according to Statista), which imputes a risk of death of 0.0014%--that's 14 in 1 Million--there's really not a whole lot of substantial room for reduction. When you add in that VAERS has recorded 863 records of serious reactions to the shot, including 14 deaths, and that this data only covers the 12-17 age group, and only for the 12/14/20 to 7/16/21 timeframe, it is unclear how much better Covid shots are than just letting children get and recover from Covid, which they do extraordinarily well (and gain enhanced future infection protection to boot). In contrast, there have been 81,532 all-cause deaths in the 17 and under age group since the beginning of the pandemic, which means a child 17 or under is 74 times as likely to die from something other than Covid as they are to die from Covid. Further, while risk of death from Covid does increase in the twenties and thirties, even that is very low--there have been 39,649 deaths attributed to Covid since the beginning of the pandemic among the 39 and under group, which represents less than 4% of all Covid deaths, in a group that comprises 170.8M people; that is a 0.0023% chance, or 23 in 1 Million. The all cause deaths in that group is 645,384, which means you are 15 times as likely to die from something other than Covid if under 40. If you are under 40, are not immune compromised, and do not have underlying medical issues, I'm not saying don't get a shot. I'm saying the odds are that you will be fine, and it is extremely likely you are engaging in other activity that is more likely to kill you than Covid. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e1.htm
- 103 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
This is inaccurate. See my post directly above yours. As the Covid shot does not actually preclude one from contracting or spreading Covid, it is more accurately described as a preventative therapeutic (and a pretty effective one, at that). Accordingly, assuming people who have received the Covid shot are less likely to contract or spread Covid is erroneous, and unscientific. If the goal is truly to reduce the population of individuals with Covid in the country, screening for active cases at the border is a far more robust measure than denying entry to those without a shot, but by and large letting everyone with a shot in without examination.
- 103 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
I don't know, but again, why does that prevent me from calling out a logical inconsistency in a governmental decision? If Canada required that all people entering the country go through the process of bleeding by having leeches attached, would you accept that, since you weren't in parliament or Trudeau's office? Canada has enacted a policy which allows people into the country without checking to see if they have Covid--I know because I visited Canada just last weekend. Because I received a shot and was not selected for random testing, I was simply waved through. For all Canada knows, I was positive for Covid, and spread it to multiple people. That is a change from last year when Canada required you to prove you didn't have Covid before they would let you enter without a quarantine phase. If Canada's goal is to reduce the amount of individuals entering the country with Covid, using shot status as opposed to testing is a poor way to do that. As such, denying entry to a person who has tested negative for Covid, but has not received a shot (which in no way precludes them from contracting or indeed spreading Covid) is entirely illogical, unless the goal is not to reduce the spread of Covid. The amount to which our society has become willing to abandon logical thought and rational decision-making is staggering.
- 103 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
Viral load in people who have received the shot is not meaningfully reduced compared to those who have not--here's a quote from the Lancet (full article link below). "Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts" As such, the greater good vis a vis reducing transmissibility of Covid is not improved by compelling shots. Your shot does not protect me from getting Covid from you. Your shot improves your chances of a better outcome should you contract Covid. (sorry for the font change, it happened when I pasted the quotation). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#:~:text=Vaccination reduces the risk of,including to fully vaccinated contacts.
-
Saying it's medical fact is a bit of a stretch, as long-term consequences (if there are any) are unknown. The data clearly shows that Covid is not a serious risk to young, healthy people without any underlying medical conditions. I would imagine most doctors would recommend against taking medication that is not needed, and the fact is that for millions under the age of 30, or even 40, Covid is far less concerning than multiple other activities engaged in with regularity. Now, if you want to amend to say that unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA shot, every person who is elderly, immune compromised, or has comorbidities should get the shot, I would wholeheartedly agree.
-
Your argument is that their rationale for not getting the shot, namely personal choice, is invalid. I'm saying it is a dangerous step to invalidate the personal choices of others when those personal choices do not impact you.
-
Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean inconsistencies in the logic can't be pointed out. If the goal is to prevent the spread of Covid in Canada initiated by incoming people, requiring a negative test from everyone is a far stronger process than (in all likelihood) minimal testing for those who have received a shot. A person who has not gotten the shot, but is also negative for Covid, is much less of a risk to spread Covid than a person who has gotten the shot, but is also positive for Covid. That's in no way debatable.
-
Anyone who wants the Covid shot should get it. It is certainly helpful in improving potential outcomes, particularly for the elderly, those with comorbidities, or the immune compromised. But the argument that everyone should get it in the name of public health essentially boils down to "I got the shot so I'm protected from Covid, but you also must get the shot to protect me from getting Covid from you, even though I'm totally protected from Covid, because I got the shot".
-
How can you possibly claim to know what the impacts of 2 year old medicines are 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. The hubristic arrogance here is simply astounding.
- 103 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- chi chi gonzalez
- ian hamilton
- (and 3 more)
-
And of course taking away individual choice has never led to anything bad in all of human history.
