Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,622

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    I can't give an exact number but I'd guess a fair amount. I can't imagine it's much different than something like drinking, where some start in high school and others wait until they're out of the house/adults. Buxton isn't responsible for random teenagers. I've always pushed back against the notion that baseball players are responsible for those watching, and I probably always will. Those kids have parents or other role models in their lives. It isn't Buxton's duty to parent strangers through a tv screen. He isn't perpetuating any idea. He's not endorsing or condemning the use of tobacco. He's making a personal choice, and it's one he should be allowed to make. I don't chew, and I don't have particularly strong feelings about it being banned either. If MLB decides they don't want their employees doing it, then they have the right to implement that rule, but until then players shouldn't be shamed for opting to use a substance that's within their rights.
  2. KirbyDome89
    No no no...My point was slightly tongue in cheek but I meant teams stand to earn more from healthy repeat customers over time rather than those suffering from heart disease. Individuals with chronic health aliments aren't frequenting events at the same rate as those without them, and they certainly aren't matching lifespans either. We're speaking in extreme generalities here but a long term outlook is rosier if teams aren't feeding (literally) into the #1 affliction the US suffers from. I think I've made the exact opposite contention. We're talking about guys who beat the hell out of their bodies over a short period of time. Even if it's 5X the normal usage rate, that still a small percentage of total players. We're speculating but I'd wager that MLB spends much more on chronic physical aliments than they do on cancer linked directly to chewing. Sure, they might save a little $, but as I said before there are more impactful ways of saving $ and protecting the product/revenue that would be just as easy to implement. I think the fact that they aren't addressed says a lot about the motivation behind banning tobacco.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Short term yes, but they also stand to make a lot more long term by holding onto customers. That's the inconsistency. I think that player health could certainly be a factor, I just don't buy the idea it's near the top of the list for banning chew. Ha, in one sitting, sure. It doesn't take too many of them over time to start doing some damage though.
  4. KirbyDome89
    Honestly I'd rather they not get rid of any of it, and adults were allowed to make their own decisions. Buxton is a grown man, I think it's safe to assume he knows the risks associated with chewing at this point. He's no longer an impressionable youngster. I agree that there always has to be a first domino to fall, but like I said before, if MLB is actually serious about the health of those involved there are larger dominoes to topple that would be just as easy as banning chew. That leads me to believe this is more about PR, i.e. "think of the children," rather than actual concern.
  5. KirbyDome89
    I agree with Nick that holding up one side as "worse," to exonerate the other is a weak argument, but Aggies is right about the hypocrisy. Heart disease affects exponentially more people than cancer due to smokeless tobacco, yet ballparks are more than willing to push out 3000 calorie platters of artery clogging garbage to their fanbase. That absolutely has a direct financial impact. IMO banning chewing tobacco is purely PR. They can spin it as a concern for health, but that comes off as entirely hypocritical when you consider what they're selling to the fanbase that kicks in tax money to pay for the stadium, generates concession/ticket revenue, and purchases tv viewing packages.
  6. KirbyDome89
    Meh maybe we're reading into the thread differently. I see most of the concern directed at moving forward rather than performance in April or May. IMO the last 2 weeks have been a wake up call although I'd argue that some of the warning signs were present even when things were rolling at the beginning of the season. I agree, the bullpen held together nicely the first couple months, but I also think the numbers are a bit deceiving. Bank the performance thus far, just don't expect those numbers to continue or improve.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Remember when that Phil Hughes $$ and Mauer's contract ending would allow this team to spend their way out of the bottom half of the league in terms of payroll? Me too..... Not that I had high hopes for Jay but if all they could muster was cash, I'd rather MN hold onto him even if the chance of him becoming useful is close to zero.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Neither are saves or holds. It's hard to blow huge leads even for the worst bullpens. The bullpen has thrown the 2nd fewest innings in baseball thanks to a slow schedule to start the season and some deep games by the starting staff. Until recently they hadn't been taxed at all. With Perez looking like the guy we thought he was, Gibson once again struggling to find consistency, and Pineda being a 5ish inning guy, the warts that were largely ignored have become much more apparent.
  9. KirbyDome89
    They're something like 18M short of last year's payroll. Not that I buy the idea that extensions are the reason for throttling payroll, but if that's true, and MN really is hoarding $$ simply to pay Berrios, Buxton, ect. then why aren't the deals done? Why would the club continue to watch the price of retaining those guys climb with every game. It'd be horrific management. No, Kimbrel alone doesn't equal a championship, but solidifying the bullpen greatly increases the chances of winning one, and adding Kimbrel would've been one step in that direction. If you didn't want Kimbrel because of a less than stellar postseason, then why is Giles, who imploded in 17' is someone to target? If AAV is the real hold up then take solace in the fact that the Twins once again have a good chunk of money coming off the books after this season. They can afford to pay an elite reliever for 2.5 seasons.
  10. KirbyDome89
    It's obvious the Twins need to address the bullpen. They had the opportunity to add an elite arm, and as mentioned earlier in the thread, at the cost of only having to pay cash. Now they'll have to give up prospects and cash to fill that same void, as well as wait another 6-8 weeks. That's a loss no matter how you spin it. Does it spell doom and gloom for the remainder of the season? No, but it's certainly not a positive, and trying to rationalize that decision based on a signing Chicago made 2 years ago is ridiculous. I put far more stock in 500+ regular season innings he's thrown than 10 not so great innings last postseason, but if SSS floats your boat he was pretty damn good in the 10 IPs over 5 previous postseasons before last year.
  11. KirbyDome89
    I guess I missed the part where Theo Epstein was a poor PBO and the Cubs are a mismanaged organization.... Chicago outbidding MN for Darvish two years ago has nothing to do with the Kimbrel signing. This isn't some giant W for the Twins.....
  12. KirbyDome89
    I don't doubt they're doing that, or at least they believe they're doing that. I'd add though, that "winning," trades and "increasing asset value," can be entirely subjective, and one can come at the cost of the other. My concern is whether strict adherence to those bullet points, and a self imposed budget ultimately prevents this team from landing a top of the rotation talent. My hope is that their primary concern is maximizing what looks to be a seriously competitive major league team, my gut tells me that terms like "financial flexibility," and "sustainability," might be tossed around more than I'd prefer.
  13. KirbyDome89
    They've purchased or traded for arms, but I don't think there's any debate about what tier those guys fall into relative to the rest of the league. There's obvious value in turning Matt Magill into a serviceable pitcher, or showing Marin Perez a cutter, although I'd agree with Mike that I'm not sure how to gauge Perez right now. We've also seen the "fixer upper," strategy flop pretty hard. The Rule 5 nonsense was a disaster from a roster management standpoint, the arms acquired via trade that have pitched at the major league level (Littell, Enns, DeJong) haven't been great but maybe Moya bucks that trend, there's an entire graveyard of pitchers that were claimed and immediately flamed out, Craig Breslow was supposed to reinvent himself, ect.... There's nothing wrong with filling your back end like that, although I'd prefer not to witness another season of waiver roulette. The point I made earlier was about adding front end talent, and the idea that the Twins can turn coal into diamonds just hasn't borne itself out.
  14. KirbyDome89
    Agreed on all fronts. It's hard to have dramatic jumps when you're already at <6% of pitchers seeing big league action by the 5th round. Baseball is a unique animal in terms of both draft and development. I certainly endorse drafting players who are more likely to pan out. My only concern is at what point do we see this club start to move some of that young talent and/or pay real $$ in FA to obtain the pitching they desperately need.
  15. KirbyDome89
    I was using the same data. For HS arms going from the 2nd to 5th round the % chance of making it is cut in half. It's not as extreme for college arms but if you go 1st to 5th the % chance is again slashed in half. I'd consider that fairly significant even if your odds are !:4 at best.
  16. KirbyDome89
    There's a significantly better chance of a 2nd round arm reaching the major leagues. We all agree that prospects are lottery tickets, but way too often on TD they're all lumped together into the same category. All picks aren't created equally, 2nd and 7th round picks don't have the same odds of panning out.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Isn't that just as hyperbolic as "can't find pitching?" Again, I'm on board with drafting position players that are more likely to reach the major league level, but I'd certainly take a pitcher that slots as the 2 or 3 which I think is a much more reasonable expectation for a guy drafted in the first couple rounds.
  18. KirbyDome89
    I'm almost 100% on board with this. It's a nitpick but you could argue that Perez has done the most "development," in regards to production since joining the Twins organization. Whether I believe it continues is another topic.... I like the strategy of taking bats if they believe those players have a better shot at reaching their ceiling and/or the major league level. I hope it's for that reason rather than the organization is lacking in their ability to develop pitching. IMO the concern for finding arms is valid up until the Twins start spending real $$ in FA or moving some of these young guys with "upside," for said pitching. If they're going to continue to bargain hunt during FA, trades, and even scour later rounds of the draft hoping to strike gold then maybe they're better off rolling the dice on a few early round arms.
  19. KirbyDome89
    I'm starting to allow myself to get my hopes up for this team. That's scary. The last time I felt this good about a Twins squad I was a freshman in college. Ahhh the good old days.....
  20. KirbyDome89
    Looking to trade from a surplus and dropping a player from the roster are entirely different. I saw the former, not so much the latter. The Twins are fortunate that Astudillo has positional flexibility and they're able to carry 3 catchers. Plenty of teams survive with 2, so the notion of trading Castro, who at the time was clearly the inferior hitter amongst the group, wasn't the illogical idea it's being painted as. Everybody realizes moving Castro was contingent on performance and health leading up to the trade deadline. It's easy in mid May, with the aid of hindsight, to criticize the desire, but if performance remained static, Castro was dealt, and Garver was injured the day after the deadline would we ridicule the move? I doubt it.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Either way you spin, budget or no, the overarching criticism, that the bullpen didn't receive the attention it needed, is still valid. If it's obvious that MN operates on a self imposed budget then it should also be obvious that the bullpen, as currently constructed, isn't built to last 162 games. They can't hide 4+ guys on the back end through the summer. If the Twins truly hit their salary ceiling (a notion I don't buy) what would've been a better allocation of resources, a utility player with an OPS+ of 79 to this point, or a couple reliable bullpen arms? I'd argue the latter. If the argument is that MN was content with what they had and didn't feel the need to spend on the bullpen, then why are they turning to a guy like Adams in mid May?
  22. KirbyDome89
    Winning is a strong perfume.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Doesn't the fact Nick was willing to settle financially reinforce the point I'm making though? His interest, above all else, during his time with LA and NY was himself. He waited over a year to shed light on the alleged assaults and it immediately followed LA being cleared of misconduct regarding his dismissal. That timing is too convenient to ignore. If "some things are worth being fired for," why wait over a year? Why dump personal communications with coworkers? If he's truly disturbed by the questionable morals of the Dodgers why settle and keep quiet? If Nick is a victim, it's of his own selfishness at this point. This isn't some absolution for Kapler or LA here. I'm simply pointing out that Nick Francona seems hellbent on getting back at the above duo, and in that process he appears to be using potentially serious issues as stepping stones.
  24. KirbyDome89
    It'd be poetic if the Twins traded Alcala and Celestino for Giles, as that was exactly what it cost Houston to replace him last summer.
  25. KirbyDome89
    We did. Hill was clear she isn't a fan of those choosing not to attend being asked why or having attention draw to them. She isn't wrong, those are personal choices and the players choosing not to visit the WH don't owe anybody, teammates included, an explanation. That same treatment should extend to those who opt to make a visit, and she was unambiguous about her desire for that not to be the case.
×
×
  • Create New...