Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Squirrel

Community Moderator
  • Posts

    34,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

 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 Squirrel

  1. Did you even read this article or just respond to the title?
  2. Yeah, I don’t think most, including the FO, thought they would trade him at the deadline.
  3. I think he has a limited trade clause, and can only be traded to certain teams ... don't know which ones. However, we are NOT going to get a haul of prospects for him. No one will be able to pay it, for one. The only teams possibly interested would be contending teams. Of known contending teams, which ones need a SS? And of those, which ones can take on that salary? We aren't going to get a haul with that much salary involved. And until we are out of it, we are still in it. Whether or not we have hope to go deep into the playoffs, I think we still make the playoffs ... so I won't trade Correa unless/until we are deeply out of it, and then, don't expect a lot in return. Remember the lessons of the Santana trade.
  4. I know that, Chief ... they could have made another trade, and I thought maybe something else would/could happen ... they could have done something BEFORE the lockout. I've been on this page with you about the BP, maybe not as irate about the trade itself, but certainly about the BP.
  5. The timing was bad, but I honestly didn't mind the trade EXCEPT that they didn't then do something else (before OR after) to shore up the BP and just left it Rogers-less and not adding a QUALITY piece. That's what was wrong, imo. These losses, imo, are 95% on the FO.
  6. While I didn't mind the trade ... I was hoping there was more to come to shore up the BP, especially after losing Rogers. Heck, even BEFORE losing Rogers.
  7. This is completely false ... these generalities do nothing for discussion ... nothing ... I think MOST EVERYONE blames some form of the organization for that, and doesn't leave everyone blameless. To what degree which of us holds those various entities to blame differs, but stop with this. I've said it many times ... I hold the FO to the majority of the blame. Execution is another part of the blame ... I hold players to more of that than others ... but the coaches and manager do get some. But I don't think anyone thinks no one is faultless.
  8. Lol ... it's what I would have done ... well, maybe not Pagan either day ...
  9. Lol ... you've been pulling for him all year ... who comes off the 40-man? I mean ... that's such a tough choice!
  10. Well ... so much for my thought that Baldelli should have used Thornburg last night instead of Pagan ... sigh. Frustrated.
  11. Shaddup Lol
  12. I'm not bashing him for bringing in Pagan ... but I am sorely disappointed because Pagan in his last 3 appearances has blown it. Yeah, this is the on the FO for not having better options in the BP ... 95%. But ... Rocco made the choice and I, personally, who knows nothing, would have at least gone with someone else because ... why not try something that's different when the same has blown it several times in a row recently? Frankly, I would have had ALL of them up and ready because, yeah. I've 'complained' about our offense not coming through when needed, and here they did just that, came through and came through BIG. We should not be losing it in the 10th that way, giving up 4 runs. I'm just frustrated, and I'm not directing that frustration at anyone else because I own my own emotions, but sheesh, that was the toughest loss for me. FRONT OFFICE, ARE YOU LISTENIN'?
  13. Yeah ... I don't think Sands is the right choice, either ... but we have Ryan, Gray, Ober (IL), Archer, Bundy, Winder, Smeltzer ... we can figure out something there.
  14. Or ... as was suggested the other day ... make Archer and Bundy the tandem ... I mean, there ARE options for having so many starters that are still young, and not having a capable enough BP. Doing the stacking thing would save the BP at least that one day. (I'm not in favor of stacking more than that, but for one 'start', let's try that.)
  15. He can be a swing man. He can be a starter when we are down a starter, but be part of a stacking team with either Bundy or Archer when Ober gets back. Or, Smeltzer does this. There are options. Winder doesn't *have* to be a starter.
  16. I agree he didn’t have much choice, and that’s the most maddening thing about it. But, given Pagan’s most recent outings, I’d have gone with one of the other bad choices just because of that. It couldn’t be worse, and just maybe a bit better
  17. Uh, Rocco isn't the one who makes these trades ... or is that the joke?
  18. Well, let’s see … 249 wins, 208 losses, that calculates to +41 WAR. Did I get that right?
  19. I actually missed it ... just tuning in now ... and now I don't want to watch ... because ...
  20. I am SO GLAD!!!!!! that Baldelli had the foresight to rest these two so they could come in fresh late in the game to make something happen ... that's managin'!
  21. I just enjoy watching each of them play, especially in the same game ?
  22. Well, if they are going to sit on the same night, better it's an away game than the hometown crowd. But yeah ... (which means 'no comment')
×
×
  • Create New...