Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

rujellis

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    28

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by rujellis

  1. rujellis
    Another reason its hard to answer is we don't know the alternatives. Falvine should know who would be on their shortlist, so that becomes another measuring stick for Molitor. Personally, I just want fresh...the proverbial turning of the page, blank slate, etc. This off-season with cap space, prospects, etc. it seems we are going to see the next 'wave' come in and I want a new manager in place to grow with them and create a new Twins identity. With all that said, I am not in the camp that would say anyone is upgrade to Molitor which is why Falvine needs to weigh him vs. who's on their shortlist. I won't revolt if Molitor still in place, he has shown some ability to adapt(i.e. shifts, bunting, moving Dozier out of leadoff) and perhaps bullpen usage is his next adaptation.
  2. rujellis
    For me the other point of assessment for a manager is player development...but it still falls in category of 'what percentage of blame/credit should manager get?' Rosario, Berrios, Escobar, Gibson, Kepler(vs. LHP), etc. Was Molitor an important part of those guys making some improvements? Did he have conversations that allowed some sort epiphany for these guys? Does he get credit for helping make Adrianza, Cave, serviceable fill-ins this year w/ potential of being quality bench options in future? Its impossible to quantify, but for me needs to be part of the equation for Falvine.
  3. rujellis
    I guess I look at it as I would have cut Zach Duke or severely limited his role post trade deadline to open a spot for Busenitz, Curtiss, Bard, Slegers, Duffey, May, etc so getting a lottery ticket and a reclamation project is just a bonus. Its not a deal where you get excited about return but rather what the deal allows you to do. Now if they go and promote DJ Baxendale, hide the women and children cause I will raze this place to the ground...;-)
  4. rujellis
    Apparently someone called Luis Rijo is coming to Twins too.
  5. rujellis
    Actually, I think once we get rid of Rodney, Gibson, Lynn, Santana, Duke, etc. Belisle will actually have the role he was originally brought in for...there will be so many young guys that Belisle can mentor that he will finally live up to his value. And FWIW, I do think its an important role. Young guys do need some help with routine, preparation, getting through life on the road, etc. I just wish we could find someone that can also be useful in a game.
  6. rujellis
    Fixed
  7. rujellis
    As long as they started with Escobar, I say you might as well go all in with the blow up. I had the thought that if its only Lynn, Rodney, Duke, etc. than Twins are keeping the core intact just in case we get hot, but also trying to open up time for youngsters too. But you start by getting rid of a core guy like Escobar, and I hope they go all the way with it. Get creative and allow the entire 40 man to re-shuffle. I do pause a bit on Gibson given we have needed pitching for so many years, but I won't be heartbroken either.
  8. rujellis
    Its possible there is more to it, but the key difference between the two is defense. Buxton batting .200 at least still gives you the best defensive CF in baseball. Sano batting .200 leaves us w/ a below average defender or him fighting w/ another .200 hitter for the DH spot.
  9. rujellis
    How could you forget A.J Achter? The diamond in the rough they drafted in the 46th round of the 2010 draft. He gave us 18 'strong' games across 2 seasons. :-) Your point still stands. But I do think its a crapshoot for almost all teams. And you also have to weigh quality of ML contributors vs. quantity. 1 small example would be the Yankees...they had more players drafted(+11 rounds) who contributed in the majors, but only had 1(David Phelps) who had a WAR above 1.6. Whereas Twins had 2 (Hildenburger- 1.6 & Rogers- 1.8). For comparison sake, I long think of STL as having one of best player development systems and they only had 6 players with a +1.6 WAR over that same span...but managed to pull some higher quality from their 6(Carpenter-22, Rosenthal-5.8, Adams-6.1 Siegrist- 4.4, etc.) The Twins haven't found that diamond in the rough that can cover for a bad 1st round or 2nd round pick in a draft year.
  10. rujellis
    If you want to debate realistic scenarios(and I am not saying any of the above aren't realistic) than you need to care about your club's history of spending. Otherwise, I would really like us to give Darvish 250m, Harper 350m, and Kershaw 450m because who cares about the payroll...:-) Personally, I am more likely to sign a reliever than I would be giving up major assets or prospects to get one via trade. A true high leverage reliever is perhaps the exception, but I don' think there are really that many available out there either.
  11. rujellis
    I don't know if I would call giving up Huascar Ynoa as being fooled and in need of a lesson in run differential. You could argue because he added a pitcher who 'might' be able to keep teams to less than 5 runs, that he understands how to improve run differential. :-)
  12. rujellis
    For some odd reason, I like him even more because he mentioned 'Woman's Basketball' in his list of pro-sports. I don't think its going to make or break him as a baseball player, but it shows some good awareness for a young kid that the world is bigger than whichever world they are participating in. Not something you see very often from young kids, athletes (or many humans). :-)
  13. rujellis
    Championships I would agree with, although early 2000's....Marlins, Angels, White Sox, Phillies would disagree. But I also look at the last 4 World Series runner-ups...CLE, KAN(x2), STL all outside the top 10 in payroll. We aren't going worst to first because we sign 1 big ace this offseason, or because we leave 100k in our draft pool on the table. I can easily get behind those that want to speed up the win process( have a 4 year old who says 'I wish I could go to a game when Twins actually win :-) ). But I also understand that slow burn is likely the way to go for a 'small market' team who's business model is to be fiscally conservative. :-)
  14. rujellis
    To me this should be amended to 'winning' vs. 'spending money'. The burden of proof is on MIN to show they know how to make and win in the playoffs consistently. I don't much care how much or how little they spend to do it. But I do know we(or at least I) need to give Falvey and company more than 9 months before i start holding them accountable for 10+ years of someone else mismanaging the team. Every move SHOULD be under the microscope and open for analysis, but the conclusion doesn't always need to be 'Oh no here we go again'. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake, not part of some long lasting narrative.
  15. rujellis
    Well in fairness we haven't really seen the 'new' Twins way. Perhaps Falvine is more willing to use FA to fill needs(or trades). I think the issue is applying Terry Ryan era logic to Falvine era decisions. I still need the twins to prove it to me that they will approach roster construction differently, but need to give them a chance to do so as well. Maybe we took R Lewis with the thought that Polanco/Palacios/Vielma can man the position for a few years, and N Gordon becomes trade chip number 1 in getting a good pitcher via trade. Regardless, I am hopeful that Falvine understands we need pitching. :-)
  16. rujellis
    My only issue with last night was Radcliffe comments around big things at 35 and 37. I don't think another under slot deal(or two) can be considered a 'big thing'. Because in my mind, 1:1 being under slot is completely independent of #35 also being able to go under slot as well. So it can't be what Radcliffe was alluding too...I have to believe that someone sniped a player early that neither MIN or player's agent expected... So we see what today brings. My general hope is that nearly every single one of them is signable high school players. This is not the NFL draft where you can fill needs with 1st or 2nd year players at every round in draft. It feels we went low floor/high ceiling with 2 of 3 picks...no point in stopping now.
  17. rujellis
    You also need to save money somewhere to convince some of these guys to sign...college relievers is one way to do it. They likely could be thinking save some money and get a guy we like.
×
×
  • Create New...