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
    that wasn't Ryan's trade, and I think people bemoan the Ramos trade a little bit more than they should. Yeah, he was worth more than Capps, who we didn't even need, but Ramos isn't all that.
  2. jimmer
    we're going to trade a well thought of (by some) prospect? Is Ryan still GM in your scenario? :-)
  3. jimmer
    I think Dozier floats between a 3-4 WAR player for a few years. That's a valuable player.
  4. jimmer
    The task you gave yourself is no small feat. I will try and come up with an alternative in the next day or so for others to mercilessly critique. Too busy tonight to try it :-) I'll likely do it in phases, like a rough 2016-2018 team, and then a rough 2019-2023.
  5. jimmer
    With the understanding that I don't necessarily agree with the idea that 'the pitching getting better and providing many more close contest' is happening, for sure, any time soon along with the understanding that the kind of OBP and normal run creating ability Mauer has shouldn't be anywhere near the bottom three of the lineup while still with the team, I'd go with B. It has Dozier and it doesn't have Rosario or Suzuki. I'm not convinced either lineup is optimal either in personnel or construction 1-9. I think people who aren't even on our radar will likely be in the mix all the way out to 2023. That's nine seasons away.
  6. jimmer
    You're right, that is my assertion (as well as other's assertions) but they did talk about projected ticket sales being down before they got him. Anthony, when asked about the signing in the interview posted on this site, right away pointed out how much the Twins fans love him, but then backtracked and said the signing wasn't a PR move. And the fact that he's a former Twins great being signed in his twilight sure does make it seem it's about PR. I almost hope it was a PR move, that would make more sense than thinking his play was worth 10M or his mentoring was the reason we spent 10M.
  7. jimmer
    I'm not sure it's skepticism so much as it's being taken as if it's fact and, therefore, factored into his value as a justification for signing him. We know he gets in fights with players when things go bad, we know he takes confrontations with teammates to the press. Those aren't good.
  8. jimmer
    'Well, there's nothing concrete that we fans can see. We can go by the fact that guys in baseball have said great things about him, how he seemed to be in charge of those Angels teams (esp after Aidenhart's death) and how the Twins FO, who has some knowledge about him, thought he was a good teammate and brought him back.' And I ask 'what is a young guy going to say about a veteran when a reporter is asking info about the veteran for a story?' And as far as why the Twins brought him back, yeah, seems PR stuff is likely the main reason. I like how Anthony even said that first in the interview, linked here in a thread, he pointed out how much Twins fans love him and then backtracked and said it wasn't for that. And, of course, people buy into that Hollywood stuff, so when trying to justify way overspending on a player, it's as good of reason as any.
  9. jimmer
    What I was responding to was the statement that 'He's gone after this season'. We don't know that. We thought that about Pelfrey too and we see how that worked out. And we didn't have Ryan and Pelfrey talking about going year to year before that first season ever happened like we do with Hunter and Ryan.
  10. jimmer
    Compared to others at his position, he was average offensively and the worst defender of the bunch.
  11. jimmer
    Sorry, but I barely know you and I'd take your word over Heyman if the two of you disagreed. I don't doubt the possibility he's right in this situation, but his word brings no value to me. We can add Harold Reynolds to that :-)
  12. jimmer
    Except we don't know if he actually will be gone after this year. They've said they will go year to year.
  13. jimmer
    I also have to question how one would know he is a good teammate. How will he be when things get bad? We've already seen him say he's gonna look at what they young outfielders are doing right and doing wrong and then talk to them about the things they are doing wrong. Maybe they think, he's a our teammate not a coach. People take things in different ways. And, of course, if any of them are gay...
  14. jimmer
    I agree both are untouchable, but are you saying you think Buxton could be better than Trout? Cause a guy like Trout comes along once in a generation and I'd rather not put those kind of expectations on our guy. I think some (not you necessarily) under-estimate how excellent Trout is. I'd be unbelievably happy if Buxton was a healthy Eric Davis.
  15. jimmer
    Amaro wants a top notch prospect AND for the team getting Hamels to pay his whole contract. That's the problem. If it took just one really good prospect and Philly ate a good chunk of Hamels contract, he'd be traded already.
  16. jimmer
    thanks for the straightening out. I thought I read Ryan say they had zero problem with the work he was putting in.
  17. jimmer
    we had already heard Hicks is a hard worker though right, putting plenty of time in. I thought that wasn't really his issue. maybe I'm mistaken.
  18. jimmer
    'If there's one thing that we know about Burdi - besides the big fastball, crazy slide, etc. - is that he is not at all lacking in confidence. He'd fit that closer role very well.' with relief pitching being the new vague thing, it would have been a good idea to trade Perkins and his friendly contract to get some more prospects before he starts going too far downhill. may have missed that window to get real value for him.
  19. jimmer
    Yep, this makes for a good story (which is getting old already). Hunter always seems to be all about Hunter and having the story be about him. We'll see how he is in August if the team is doing poorly. Perhaps just signing him as a coach when he retired would have been the better move. He could be our Ozzie.
  20. jimmer
    So is this even more proof that prospect rankings are also just guesses and we can just ignore them like we should ignore those yearly win-loss predictions? I mean just look at the disparity on the rankings of our top 3 pitching choices right now, and Rivas being ranked but not Radke or Santana or AJ and so on? :-)
  21. jimmer
    While I genuinely appreciate the compliment, in fairness, I had the advantage of being able to chat back and forth and address concerns. He is writing relatively short blurbs about 30 teams and can't clarify/explain/defend his comments with the readers. BTW, he has a weekly chat on ESPN if you'd like to discuss his predictions with him.
  22. jimmer
    I'm not putting too much faith in anything really, I'm just talking about/posting what the projections/predictions that I've seen are saying. Prospect rankings are the same thing, so many inaccuracies (like Cano being the 7th best Yankee Prospect in early 2005), yet so many put so much faith in those around here. I'm guessing because they are so positive for us right now. And, at the same time, they don't agree the Astros have a top farm system. So praise the people as insightful for saying the Twins farm system is so good, but then when they say the Astros have a top notch farm system, the same people are way out of touch. I'm saying I understand and can see why people and projection systems are projecting us the way they are. I'm not at all basing my own predictions based on what any of them are saying, but a lot of the reasoning that I have read I already thought before I read it so I agree with. For example, I don't think we'll only win 68 (like David predicts), but I also don't think we'll win 75 (like ZIPs projects). I look at the talent on the teams and, IMO, it tells me we'll be last in the division and battling for the worst record in the AL. In the end, all these prospect rankings and projections for players and team records are just a fun thing to debate, or should be.
  23. jimmer
    Schedule also includes the NL Central. ZIPs projects (not predicts) 75 wins. 27th out of 30. I talked to the guy who creates that and he made sure to explain that projections aren't predictions because projections are based on what players will likely do and he knows player under and over perform their projections and random sequencing affects things as well.
  24. jimmer
    I didn't say Dozier and Plouffe's 2014 was an outlier, nor do I think that. I think it's their peak. I don't see them doing better. And I thought that before I even read the article. I didn't need his article to tell me that I think that is as good as those two are going to get (and that is very good, BTW). And since this is the first time they've reached this point of overall value, that it's their peak and not their plateau. In fact, ZIPs projects both to come down a bit so that system thinks it was an outlier and it was the best projection system out there for 2014. I also predict them to finish last and with a poor record for many of the same reasons he put and more. He didn't convince me. I didn't need convincing. And I don't think that just because you and others don't agree with someone that automatically makes their logic faulty or poorly disseminated logic.
  25. jimmer
    There could be many other factors other than schedule. Could be that he feels teams in the division got much better or were already much better. Could feel that our projected negative regressions outweigh the projected positive regressions. He could not like the bullpen (something that seems to be ignored a lot). He could believe that the Pythag thing doesn't mean much because run opportunities are random sequencing, and things like scoring 32 runs in two games might mess that up. I don't know. I don't know how far he dove. And I'll be happy if we get to 75 wins. I see us around 72, 73.
×
×
  • Create New...