Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! Click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

rghrbek

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    734

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 rghrbek

  1. rghrbek
    This, to me, is significantly more believable than the twins somehow improving by 22 wins, with the current roster in place.
  2. rghrbek
    I think optimistic is over 70 with this roster as it is currently constructed. So my vote is a very very strong under.
  3. rghrbek
    I am not following this rationale at all. I understand what they think they are going to get (or trying to get), but not with these players. Especially another lefty dh/1b. Apparently they have no plans to platoon Joe to give him his rest? This would make Vargas odd man out. Really dislike the group of names.
  4. rghrbek
    And the race to 3,000 comments is back on, Thanks for the update Dave!
  5. rghrbek
    I agree, the plan doesn't change much with Dozier here, except you say the D should be better...well not at shortstop if that is the case. 75 wins. Is this based in reality? Why are people expecting mid 70's wins out of this team, this year? I think a highly optimistic view is high 60's. Gibson will be better? That is a given? I agree with Gleeman that Gibson, so far, has been pretty close to Nick Blackburn...that's not a compliment. You are suggesting a 16 win jump is possible and likely. We have the same manager, pitching staff, and pitching coach. It's possible you feel 2015 is the norm and 2016 was the outlier? I am doubting you think that, as the 2015 Twins, were one of the luckiest teams in MLB history....Hard to duplicate luck. I agree that the young kids need to play often. You are banking that some of these kids will make that big of a leap? Some will, as I expect better play out of Buxton, Sano, Berrios and Shaggy, but some will fail...that's just the way it is with young kids/prospects. I expect nothing from Hughes that is positive unless he is healthy, throwing harder and in the bullpen. If Mejia is starting for us, I expect the same ups and downs all prospects seem to have, especially starting pitching. Maybe the hope of mid 70's wins is why there is such a strong feeling between trading dozier, only if we get a huge return, vs. trade dozier for a strong pitching prospect and parts, on the chance that we start competing more in 2018, or more likely 2019?
  6. rghrbek
    Disco Bombo? Thought it was Disco Dan, as in Danny Ford. Actually it probably works for both
  7. rghrbek
    People toss the phrase #3 starter around like it's a dirty word (almost). When is the last time the twins had a consistent #3 starter? Santana for 1.5 years? If we had a staff full of them, my guess is we would be pretty good. If DeLeon is a #3, Berrios, and moving forward a few others (prospects), I would argue we would be very competitive. I am not sure who you comparing Santiago to? Trading Dozier for a #3 starter and maybe another #3 starter, to me is worth it. Of course my hope is DeLeon and Alvarez (or whomever we may get) exceeds that, than even better. Gibson, Santiago, and so far May and Berrios are not anywhere close to #3 starters at this time.
  8. rghrbek
    Got a new pic on the pop up ad today. Target marketing. Regardless, I have 15 thoughts on how this day could go as it pertains to the twins...
  9. rghrbek
    Trying to get this to page 34. Molly would say, he's taking a new approach to multiple pages on threads, because the new regime has brought a perspective that he hadn't thought of before.... I am confident this thread gets to 40 pages, not confident platooning at first base will happen no matter what Molly is open too with the new regiment.
  10. rghrbek
    I might be the only one left on this site who has not commented, but yet read all the comments. Go Dave W! You have my support. Until you don't.
  11. rghrbek
    I know they've mentioned bringing in someone with a veteran presence, but if you do that, then they must have a plan for Vargas and Park (trades...who would trade for them?) I'm also not so sure that the Twins are competing next year, so it would have to be a 2 or 3 year deal right? Then we get into an age thing. Not sure I like that deal. Focus on trading Dozier, and possibly Santana. Maybe after the dust settles Napoli could be had on a shorter deal if they feel he could be an asset still.
  12. rghrbek
    Thanks lab, I don't remember hearing a ton about this but do remember him playing 3B a little less around that time.
  13. rghrbek
    Do you know something about Sano's elbow that we/I do not? I mean they played him in RF last year, and then 3rd base, and he's 2 years removed from Tommy John now, so I am assuming his elbow is very, very strong. Please enlighten.
  14. rghrbek
    This. I remember the same picture and article (the trainer was his old high school trainer right?) in the strib and thought to myself, how can an organization that has 23 million a year wrapped up in their employee (with his injury history), not have their own trainer, at a facility of their choice, and under their own rehab/work out plan? Only the Twins. I think Mauer will have to play a fair amount of games at first. 75 games. I think Vargas should get 50 to 75, and Park should get some if he figures things out. Depending on our hitting situations I may dH Mauer a lot less to keep him fresh too. Maybe he is just a 100 games a year guy now?
  15. rghrbek
    It's definitely an interesting point, and great to hear honesty like that coming from a pitcher's perspective. I guess I lean toward, if it's in a bit and it's at your lower half, I don't have a problem with it. I guess you have to define what is "in a bit", but a pitcher should be allowed to make a batter who is crowding the plate, move his feet or feel uncomfortable. Head hunting, there is no place for that.
  16. rghrbek
    Not a bad take. However, what's the dif if you lose 101 or 105 for job security? Your team is terrible. Still absolutely baffling that he took Jose out, even if he was considering that. Also, maybe he just doesn't want the worst team in Twins history to come under his guidance? Pride should have left the building once you knew you were going to lose 90 games.
  17. rghrbek
    I really think it's a combination of Molly trying to win, and being annoyed with Berrios. By pulling Berrios, he failed to help the pitcher develop further, and also of course, failed to win, because Boshers came in and gave up an immediate single. Tough to develop young talent, in a lost season, when your priority is to win. He was a little belligerent, in his manerisms, in the post game interview when asked about it, which he proceeded to not answer really. Shame on the beat writers for not pushing harder on this issue though.
  18. rghrbek
    At least Molly can be proud that his coaching did everything it could to get this win...a successful bunt.
  19. rghrbek
    It's been established that was Barrieos last start of the year...and he quit on his young prospect.
  20. rghrbek
    Molly still trying to win meaningless games instead of developing his young talent. Brings Boshers in and predictably he failed at both of those things
  21. rghrbek
    I like this idea as well, except, I just can't see Joe (or the twins), letting that happen. People and organizations have egos. Hopefully the new guy (Falvey) doesn't buy into any of that, and simply does what's best for the team. Which, if Mauer wants to come back, you take him, at a smaller role, and let injuries and other circumstances dictate his playing time.
  22. rghrbek
    My gut says McLeod, provided he can get out of his gophers/FSN duties.
  23. rghrbek
    Haha, I didn't say I was agreeing or disagreeing, but you used a smaller sample size than Parker did, to prover your point, that's all. If you simply would have mentioned the quoted post above, I think your point would have been taken more seriously.
  24. rghrbek
    uh...pot...kettle...black
  25. rghrbek
    Didn't Gibson come up here in 2013? 3+ over all below average performance, and now age 29, makes it very, very fair to question if he should be in the rotation. Gleeman's tweets about his over all numbers compared to Mr. Nick Blackburn a month or 2 ago, were very disturbing. I tend to agree with some on this post when they say, how is next year's rotation better if it's all filled with this year's guys, specifically the guys we have a larger sample size on, in the bigs? The young guys have to get better. That's really the main hope. I believe, with the right staff, and more reps that guys like Berrios and Mejia can be counted on. 2017 is gonna blow anyway. If they want to keep Erv, fine, but they should always be entertaining trade offers, and hopefully can get some value for him this off season or at the deadline. The other factor here, is who do they get back on a Dozier trade? Otherwise it's time for the young guys.
×
×
  • Create New...