KirbyDome89
-
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
-
If they were looking to extend or compete in FA for Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, ect. those contracts would be. That's what a 6 year Darvish deal is running up against. I'm in favor of bringing him in, but that is likely going to affect other decisions/contracts down the road.
-
You're right, it's crazy that Garver won't be a FA until he's 33. I would tweak your proposal and maybe make it something like a sliding scale where guys drafted at 18 are under 8-10 years of team control while college age players are slotted at 6-8 years. I think drafting a guy at 18 and only having six years to squeeze out MLB production isn't going to yield a great return on investment.
-
That isn't entirely fair. They're in a position to sign Davish and extend Buxton because they've shed considerable payroll and revenue has surged since the last time they were expected to be competitive (2011.) That doesn't mean they've bankrolled those savings for future use (I wish,) but it has created a situation where they have more $$ to work with. This isn't a defense of the Pohlads spending habits, I'm saying this team operates under a self imposed cap and big contracts are going to be a factor under that cap. There is no getting around it. You're right, in reality these large contracts don't really prevent the Twins from doing anything. They could sign or extend whoever they want without fear of penalty. Hell, they could nearly double their payroll without paying tax. But, that simply isn't how the Twins operate. They're going to limit themselves and large contracts further those limitations.
-
Oh I agree with basically everything you said. I've been riding the Darvish train. Honestly, I wouldn't like it, but I'd probably give him that 6th year just to get the deal done at this point. It'll very likely be ugly at the end but IMO it isn't difficult to look at it as payment for what the Twins get in years 1-3 and hopefully 4. My post was more generally about the idea that teams should hand these FAs the contracts they're demanding because the money is there, yet nobody really wants their own team to be the one doing so. I think the Twins are in a position that makes them an exception to the "spend wisely," rule but even with the worrisome outlook of the current rotation I still think there's a strong argument against handing Darvish 6 years. I, like you, just happen to view it as a necessary evil.
-
I don't doubt that they've inquired on several different arms. I took the quote to mean that they view the rotation as acceptable apart from one high end upgrade. IMO if Ervin was healthy to start the season there would still be plenty or room for another arm. It doesn't have to be Lynn or Odorizzi to pair with Darvish, but even signing Jaime Garcia alleviates a little pressure. Relying on Gibson and Mejia leaves questions, then add to it the fact that 2 more rotation spots have to be filled for the first month or more and any sort of comfort level with the starting rotation fades rather quickly.
-
That would be sad considering he has reportedly received multiple 5 year offers for over $100 M. To me the most interesting part of the report was that the Twins are apparently only looking to fill one rotation spot.
-
Even then it's a hard pass. I'm all for the recruiting, not so much the ABs he'll absorb....
-
Hitting arbitration sooner seems more than fair. Cutting years of team control would be pushing the pendulum even further in favor of large market teams. Maybe if it was accompanied by a hard cap but I can't see why the players union would (or should,) agree to a hard cap.
-
There are a good number of posters on TD who don't want Darvish at 6 years. While I might disagree, I can certainly understand why others don't feel like paying 25+ M annually to a pitcher who will finish the contract at age 38. It's going to be ugly at the end. The same goes for Hosmer, if MN had a need at 1B, would anybody really want to give him at an 8th year? There was a really good article already written about this. I agree that I would rather see revenue flow into the team rather than an owners pocket, but I also want that revenue spent wisely. I think the players should be making demands, and if I was Hosmer or Darvish I would be trying to get as much as I could too, but ultimately reality has to settle in.
-
With Ervin, yes, I agree that it's likely a better rotation to start this year. I was looking at the current rotation and how they're going to bridge the gap until Erv returns so I only considered this April vs. last year's starting five in April. You're right, Berrios is definitely an upgrade. Mejia should be able to top 9 IPs in 3 games and Gibson really can't be much worse than that 8.00 ERA. But, even with that improvement they're still looking at a 4 and 5 spot full of serious questions or unknowns and it's highly unlikely that 2 of the starters are dominant for the entire month. IMO if the season started tomorrow I think the Twins would be in for a rougher start to this season than the last.
-
I was as down as anybody on bringing back Santiago but he did have a very good April. We know Erv was lights out during that stretch too. I just don't see how the current staff can realistically replicate those performances, let alone top them.
-
Gibson is in the two spot right now, let that sink in.... Things can change dramatically in the next week or so (fingers crossed,) but you're right, they're putting a ton on pressure on the offense right now.
-
Pretty terrible timing, but I hear there are still some arms available on the FA market...
- 105 replies
-
- 10
-
-
MLB Shift Driving Market Realities
KirbyDome89 replied to Ted Schwerzler 's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I don't think anybody would rather see the owners pocketing $ rather than trying to improve the team. That said, as a Twins fan, I want the team to make smart decisions. If there was a need at 1B and Hosmer was asking for 8 years I doubt I'd be thrilled if MN pulled the trigger on that. I've been on the Darvish train all offseason, but even I cringe at a 7th year. I agree 100% with the article that players should should make demands, but I think it was a great point to also say those demands should be rooted in reality. If this was a case where owners were colluding to depress the market and players were actually being undervalued than the agents who have been vocal would have a legitimate gripe. Ted was right, there is an upper threshold. IMO it looks like the top end FAs have made demands that go beyond that threshold, and have refused to back down, and in doing so they're holding the entire market hostage. -
I believe that twice now I've told you there is a strong argument against the logo.... Spare me your off base paraphrasing of my posts, and your opinions on what I should and shouldn't say... You've been given an enormous amount of leeway to make your stance clear, and you've done a fantastic job of muddling what I said. Congrats. I don't think there's anything left to go over at this point.
-
DHTF "This subject really needs a middle ground. I hate subjects like this for that reason, as it's too easy to get painted into a corner that no one stands for and that is unreasonable." "I think it's offensive to assume that the name "Indians" was meant to be belittling to a race of people. I think it's wise to actually compile evidence about these types of things before making accusations of racism. If Thrylos' post is true, that is a prefect example of it. I think it's offensive if the name Indians was chosen to belittle American Indians." YOU "Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today." Theres actually no mention of a hat. Must not be an attempt by me to recontextualize then huh.... The overarching point of the OP had to do with how these issues are discussed and dealt with by society as a whole. You gave a response that was applicable to dealing with these issues in society. I responded to you.
-
I said that only considering perception sets up a "feels over reals," scenario. It does. If you're only consideration is perception you're prioritizing feelings over facts. Nowhere did I imply that a "clear eyed view," was reserved for me; you're attributing that without foundation. Are we seriously going to pretend that referring to a scenario where feelings are given priority over reality as "feels over reals," is somehow on the same level as directly calling other posters "knuckle draggers?" C'mon.... I'm all for keeping it civil, so lets make sure the courtesy is returned...
-
Why The Twins May Opt For Short-Term SP Commitment
KirbyDome89 replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
That's true but do you see anybody in next year's SP FA class that would clearly be better than either Darvish or Arrieta? I still like Darvish better than Keuchel but in general any big FA pitcher they sign will likely be early 30s with the same type of questions as this year's group. Unless they can pull off something crazy like a Machado or Harper signing followed by a big trade for a starter, I don't see the advantage of waiting a year to spend on the same type(s) of pitchers. -
I'm going to stop you here before this becomes a complete misrepresentation. I never said anything about "links," and I never used the term "non-feeling." Those were constructed by you. The quote that you've taken issue with was my response to the idea that perception is the ONLY thing that matters. I disagree, and I've explained very clearly why I feel that is a slippery slope. If you feel the need to continue then lets at least stick to what I was talking about...
-
Yes, it's me lobbing attacks.... If you need a refresher on my stance on the logo you can reread my earlier responses to you, or go through any number of other posts I've made in this thread....
-
Yes, facts are non-feeling reasons, context is another non-feeling reason. Facts and context are based in reality. If somebody creates a painting and provides their intent for doing so, regardless of our modern perception of the work, it's original intent remains factual. The context i.e. time, individuals involved, location, political environment, ect.. at the time of that creation all remain factual. Perception does not always reflect reality. I have zero desire to see all of this shoved aside because of feelings. You could've found that response by simply reading previous posts but hopefully you find the above satisfactory.... The issue isn't fighting racism. It's who you call racist, the reasons you have for labeling another as racist, and the actions you believe are justified based on your label.
-
I've never used the term "non-feelings." I've stated that I'm not comfortable with the constraint that only feelings i.e. perception, is allowed when making decisions on issues like this. You'll have to explain to me how that viewpoint is derisive. If you're concerned about posts that ridicule I can't point you in the right direction. Agreed some are. I think morality has different meanings for different people, and some individuals aren't ok with another's morality being forced on them.
-
I'm not part of the "Keep It," crowd. It's a response to the idea that only current perception matters when discussing these issues. I disagree. I think intent and context are extremely important as well.
-
You're quoting me when I was responding to the idea that only modern perception is necessary to make decisions on issues like this. I disagree with that idea, and I've detailed why. Racing refers to the ease with which offense is claimed and the moral high ground from which that position is defended. That has been omnipresent in this thread, and it unfortunately has been allowed to continue. If my comment on that is considered hijacking then slap the cuffs on. My feelings specifically regarding the logo have been made clear both in this thread, and to you via PM so I'm not sure what you're digging at here....
-
"it doesn't matter what it was intended for or meant to be. It's how people perceive it today." You did, and I disagree with the precedent it sets.
