Jump to content
Our top free agent ranking is up to 75 names; click here to check it out! ×
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

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 KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    Lynn needed this outing.
  2. KirbyDome89
    This is a good litmus test for Lynn. He pitched considerably better in May (lets be honest though, it couldn't get much worse than his April) but the three good games he turned in were against KC, Detroit, and the Suck Sox; all of which are admittedly awful teams. His starts against LA and STL were reminiscent of his April outings. Lynn doesn't have to apologize for beating up on bad teams, but a decent/good, or hell even average performance against a team that isn't looking at a potential 90+ loss season would be a nice nudge in the direction that his signing wasn't a poor one.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Two tests out of 10K + were positive for PEDs last season. Two! Yet anything short of a significant increase in testing means the players and owners "don't care?" These tests "don't do much?" IMO those are extreme notions.
  4. KirbyDome89
    I'm not trying to portray either side as pious or absolve them of any past transgressions. Maybe it was a poor analogy. The implication wasn't that the invasion of privacy is on the same level, or that increased testing is some slippery slope, rather, it was to show that the underlying idea or driving force behind both is essentially the same. Extreme parameters are being set and a failure to meet them or comply is grounds for suspicion or admonishment. I disagree with that logic.
  5. KirbyDome89
    Two players served PED suspensions last year, and over ten thousand tests were administered. Does that number have to be 0 before we can say MLB and the players "care," about PEDs? Don't you think it's a bit fallacious to say that "if they actually care they'll just increase testing?" To me that sounds a lot like the "if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried about information security," line that is floated around when the topic of data mining/spying comes up.
  6. KirbyDome89
    Agreed about the MLBPA being a hurdle. I think there are also ethical and cost efficiency issues as well. Two players served PED suspensions last year. So far 3 players have been suspended this season. We're talking about 10K + tests being administered and only a small handful of suspensions handed out. At what point does ramping up the frequency of testing to weekly, biweekly, or whatever period become nothing but an added financial burden to ownership and an unnecessary invasion into the lives of players? Even if that was the decision moving forward we're still dealing with some drugs that show elevated levels for short periods of time, hence we're right back to the issue I had with fixed interval testing. IMO the current system seems to be working.
  7. KirbyDome89
    It might seem that way to some players, but in reality I don't know how much more "fair," it can get other than each individual have the exact same likelihood of being randomly selected every time a test is administered. I don't particularly want to go down the "fairness," road, but there's a definite advantage to having 2 months, or any extended amount of time, in which you know you won't be subject to testing. That should be obvious. You can work on a time frame rather than a completely randomized schedule, and I said as much in my OP, but the frequency would have to increase significantly to avoid the flaws above. I'm not sure it's feasible and/or worthwhile.
  8. KirbyDome89
    You said you wanted each player tested the same number of times but randomly. I pointed out that a quota sets a scenario in which players can go extended periods of time where the threat of a test is non-existent. Now you want a test sometime every 2 months, which again leads to situations of extended time where players don't have to worry about testing if they hit and early date. Oh and to boot, the current testing is apparently a sieve despite of the thousands of tests that occur throughout the year. Yeah, must be me......
  9. KirbyDome89
    You mismanaged the exam?
  10. KirbyDome89
    You clamored for a quota and truly randomized dates. I guess you've changed your mind. The point I made still holds, if somebody hits their test early, even in a 2 month window, they now have a large chunk of time in which they can use. The whole point of resetting the pool and using randomized testing is that there isn't a time where a player is certain to not be tested. BTW MLB is pushing 10K tests a year so this idea of a "gaping policy," just isn't true.
  11. KirbyDome89
    And if a player randomly hits that number of tests early in the season as was the case with Gomez, you could potentially have a huge window where that player can use substances because he doesn't have to worry about another test in the near future. By eliminating a quota and drawing from the same pool every time each player has an equal chance every test cycle. If nothing else it eliminates a scenario where players can use with confidence.
  12. KirbyDome89
    Doesn't that leave the system open to even more abuse though? If you're only tested X amount of times per season and you happen to hit a handful of tests early like Gomez, the chances of your name coming up again are slim, which makes it easier to get use illegal substances. The current system certainly isn't perfect, but since everybody reenters the "lottery," before each test, they all have the same chance of being tested on the same date, which at the very least eliminates the possibility that some will have an advantage over others in terms of a window to use. I agree, there likely are a good number of players who aren't caught simply by dumb luck, but apart from weekly, or in some cases almost daily testing of all players I'm not sure what more MLB can do to catch users. It's hands down one of, if not the most stringent testing programs in all of sports. There are always going to some who slip through the cracks.
  13. KirbyDome89
    I have a feeling no matter what amount they spend next offseason, $7 million of it will be counted as "money from the Hughes trade." It's a good thing they added some extra budget flexibility, I was worried they wouldn't have much $$ to spend....
  14. KirbyDome89
    What relief does this provide other than to the Pohlads' wallet? They sold a high draft pick because they couldn't just eat the cost of a terrible contract. I blame myself for believing the Twins would actually change.
  15. KirbyDome89
    Nowhere unless a trade is made for an actual upgrade. IMO these proposed improvements aren't actually an improvement. It's trading one set of warts for another. It also seems like the warts the Twins would be bringing in are worse than what they'd give up. Ramirez, Carter, ect seem to be benefitting from backup QB effect.
  16. KirbyDome89
    DanSan was horrible, no doubt, but that wasn't the comp I was making. Even at his worst there was still a group that felt his ability to pinch run and his ability to play multiple positions, albeit not well, warranted a roster spot. IMO that's not valuable enough, even for the 25th spot. I don't see Carter taking up a roster spot as much different. If the best we can say about the guy is he can pinch hit, on an AL team, and maybe he'll hit a HR then I'll pass. Apart from that occasional HR, he provides almost no value. I just don't see how adding a guy who will struggle to hit near the Mendoza line and K in 1/3 of his ABs will help this team turn the offense around. I'll note that I'm not even a huge Robbie fan, but in the same way Morrison isn't a .200 hitter, Grossman isn't as bad as his numbers suggest. He's played much better the last few weeks.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Maybe we're talking past each other with the "distract us," part. I'm not a fan of tax payer dollars being soaked up by the NFL in any form, but I'm not sure if that's the distraction you're talking about.
  18. KirbyDome89
    A big gripe with Danny Santana was that he provided minimal or only situational usage for his roster spot. I don't see this as being much different. Yes, Carter is more likely to hit a HR than Grossman, but he's also almost guaranteed to give you consistently worse ABs. I get that this offense needs help right now, but I don't think the answer is to plug in a guy who looked cooked last year and cross your fingers that he hits a few HRs.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Agreed that he no control over whether he hits w/ RISP. I think the rest of the post was spot on in questioning whether he's able to hit in general though. Carter was terrible last year and LA basically handed him over. I guess he's added depth, although the quality is debatable.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Sports have always been about entertainment. I don't think that has ever changed.
  21. KirbyDome89
    His performance last year makes a strong case for that toast option.
  22. KirbyDome89
    This. Once you look beyond his ERA last season it's apparent he isn't the same guy prior to the surgery.
  23. KirbyDome89
    I agree that a good process doesn't always deliver a good result. I've said the same thing multiple times regarding the Park signing. I don't agree that the process was solid in this case, so I think ripping the results is warranted. They could have waited another season to make sure the 14' Hughes was who they were signing and not 10'-13' Hughes, and still come in early on the extension.
  24. KirbyDome89
    I would guess most don't read it that way. To say the "Buxton doesn't care about working on his hitting as much as his defense," summary is a different interpretation is probably too kind. How far can a simple quote be stretched before speculation becomes fabrication? I guess we'll find out....
  25. KirbyDome89
    Do you think Cave sticks with the team? Personally I don't, so I'm not going to get bent out of shape over whether it's Cave or LaMarre getting ABs, but I'm also not going to get on anybody for wanting to go with the "hot bat," for 1-2 weeks. I don't think anybody is campaigning for LaMarre as a long term solution, but Cave fits into that category as well. The end game is to find some sort of spark on offensive for that 1-2 week period. Is it really that crazy to prefer LaMarre? IMO it isn't, and I think that's the only point anybody in that camp has made.
×
×
  • Create New...