Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jimmer

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,027

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

 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 jimmer

  1. jimmer
    Remember, we lose a draft pick if we sign the 36 year old, one dimensional, 1.4 WAR last year player named Jose Bautista. Not to mention the money we spend on him when we aren't going to compete.
  2. jimmer
    Tom Hardy's 'Taboo' premieres today on FX 'Victoria' premieres on Sunday on PBS after Sherlock And The Young Pope premieres Sunday on HBO.
  3. jimmer
    The DEF rating at Fangraphs takes into account position. It has a positional adjustment. It's why only 3 qualifying RF have a positive DEF. It's also why every 1B has a negative DEF score (because even the best 1B defense doesn't give more value than average defense at shortstop) Max had a positive DRS in RF (+5) and right around average UZR (only slightly below zero, not enough to say below average). DRS and UZR are the stats to look at when comparing Max to other RF (or any player to other players at the same position). So no, Fangraphs DEF stat wasn't really hating Kepler's defense, it was adjusting for position.
  4. jimmer
    Is Hughes recovering to what he once was a good thing? Do we believe May is actually going to get a real shot?
  5. jimmer
    So, if we don't trade Dozier for pitching, how are we improving our rotation?
  6. jimmer
    exactly.
  7. jimmer
    It is the same EXACT thing. It's two different assumptions based on the SAME AMOUNT of information. One just gives a brand new FO the benefit of the doubt, which apparently is just fine (for whatever reason) while the other doesn't and is, therefore, a 'serious accusation'. So we are fine with assuming that FOs are doing the right thing when nothing gets done. I guess that's one way to go. IMO, if Dozier doesn't get traded and walks in two years then it's a failure cause we got nothing at all for the future.
  8. jimmer
    It's the same assumption as thinking they didn't trade him cause the offer wasn't good enough. Same thing, exactly. Is that assumption okay?
  9. jimmer
    As opposed to perhaps over-estimating Dozier's value trying to hit a grand slam and not settling for less on their first big move in charge. So yes. But we'll never know what the offers were if he doesn't get traded.
  10. jimmer
    Hmmmmm. P.S. Nightengale is a trustworthy a source as the National Inquirer (if even that)
  11. jimmer
    Are we just going to assume that if a deal doesn't happen there were no good offers?
  12. jimmer
    So, if we don't trade Dozier, how are we improving our rotation? Just keep drafting and hoping for the best? Some believe Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Kepler and Polanco are our core. We don't think getting quality pitching that will help now and in the near future is a good idea while these guys go into their 2nd and 3rd seasons? Risk aversion is one of the reasons we are where we are now as is holding on to veterans and getting nothing when they leave. Holding onto Dozier, who will be gone after two seasons, is certainly the safe thing for us to do while we continue to rack up 90+ loss seasons, but I'd rather the FO take some chances. Trading Dozier for players who might bust sure is a taking a chance. For me, a necessary chance. Keeping Dozier, for fear of the prospects busting, and then seeing him go in two years, is a lot less risky...and IMO, is bad management. Keeping Dozier does nothing for our future.
  13. jimmer
    Right now, this team is basically the same 103 loss team we had last year. While this team is, IMO, clearly better than a 103 loss team, it's a 90+ loss team which we've done zero to improve in the short term.
  14. jimmer
    Good thing that neither Alvarez or De Leon are relief pitching prospects then.
  15. jimmer
    The problem is, in here, there seems to be a huge disagreement about what Dozier is worth. Seems that when/if a trade is made, some are going to say it was too little for Dozier when it could very well be a fair trade (or even an overpay). Now, if there is no trade, some may just figure that the Dodgers weren't offering fair value (or more) and that may not be the case at all. For example, if De Leon and Alvarez are on the table and the trade doesn't happen.
  16. jimmer
    This team forever looked for pitch to contact pitchers. They were/are cheaper than power/strikeout pitchers. The added bonus is that they required players behind them that were more glove than bat (also cheaper players). That worked, sporadically, for quite some time, until the team stopped thinking defense matters but still kept developing pitchers the same way.
  17. jimmer
    I understand the technicality, but that doesn't change anything. When looking at Sickels list of prospects and talking about minor league prospects, two guys ranked ahead of Alvarez are full time major leaguers now. And the overall point is, Alvarez is pretty high up the food chain for Sickels, for those who value his listings.
  18. jimmer
    Never been much of a fan of Sickels, but a lot seem to be. Sickels, in late Sept of 2016, had Alvarez as the 18th ranked prospect in baseball (ranked 117th before 2016 season). Some of the guys ranked ahead of him (Benintendi, Swanson) are no longer prospects. They are in the majors for good already. http://www.minorleagueball.com/2016/9/24/12932956/top-100-prospects-end-of-2016 So De Leon (5th) and Alvarez both sit in the top 20 for Sickels. Two years of Dozier for 12 years combined of them. Yes please. Too much? Likely. Those two PLUS another? Way too much? Likely. BTW, our top guy, according to Sickels, is Gordon as the 40th best prospect.
  19. jimmer
    oh, you never know....
  20. jimmer
    When you say Vargas might continue when he left, do you mean having an OPS in the mid .600s after a hot 18 games in July? Cause I agree, that would not be a surprise :-)
  21. jimmer
    I have Beuhler 3rd with De Leon 4th. I expect really good things from Buehler.
  22. jimmer
    Yeah, he and Bellinger are the top 2. I'd probably put Bellinger slightly ahead because he's a stud offensively AND defensively, is ready for the majors, and he seems to have a much higher floor while still having a very high ceiling. Alvarez has potential ace stuff and if we could get him, that'd be awesome. We need to stop being so risk adverse.
  23. jimmer
    yeah, adding them up like that...doesnt really work that way. First, cause these arent predictions or overall team projections, these are individual projections. Second because playing time will be affected in a lot of ways. Injuries, not even spending significant time on the 25 man, their role, because some players will play above and below their means, etc, etc, etc. Cant just add them up and figure thats what is actually going to happen or assume the people who make these projection systems think that either.
  24. jimmer
    exactly. Been saying that all along
  25. jimmer
    I agree. 8 WAR over the next two is about right, give or take a 1/2 WAR.
×
×
  • Create New...