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
    Personally I agree with Barkley. That said, I think one thing missing from the article is the role of a support system. If individuals directly involved in your life are also strong role models, it's easy to dismiss the idea of athletes filling that role; such is the case for me. However, I also understand not everybody is that fortunate. It isn't difficult for me to see how an athlete who excels at an activity, which possibly is one of the few bright spots in a person's life, can ascend to hero status.
  2. KirbyDome89
    My comment was directed at the snippet that I quoted, not the entire exchange. There is no "context," where the comparison you made is warranted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand that the events you listed aren't in the same stratosphere as the issue involving Sano. Nothing is being "controlled," if you don't like the pushback to your post then perhaps a more measured approach is the remedy.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Comparisons like this only distract from the seriousness of the situation. If your intent is to support the author of the Twitter post, this type of comment doesn't accomplish that goal.
  4. KirbyDome89
    Spot on. I'm not sure how or why those she told in confidence have come under fire but the timing of the decision to write and share the post was 100% hers.
  5. KirbyDome89
    I'm not talking about a courtroom, I'm talking about the Twins and MLB looking into the matter and coming to a reasoned and researched conclusion. The only times I've seen you mention any sort of vetting is to claim it will attack/discredit the accuser, and force the revisitation of past trauma (this is potentially true.) Rereading your posts I've gotten no indication that you view an investigation as anything other than an inessential and humiliating ordeal for an accuser. I certainly can sympathize with the emotional difficulty but we'll disagree on the utility of searching for all particulars pertinent to the accusation. What you're missing is that some aren't comfortable arriving where you already are with what little is known. Again, you're entitled to judge as you will, just as others are allowed to withhold judgement until more information is available. Don't put words in my mouth. I think the bigger "problem," is making intimidating statements towards those who aren't 100% in step with you....
  6. KirbyDome89
    When it ran counter to everything TD was stating it was relevant to the story presented. You said it yourself, she wasn't aware of inner workings for access and the quote was a mistake; a valid explanation. If we can look past her mistakenly using that information it seems logical to do the same for others who pointed out the incongruity. It wasn't an invalidation, and that sentiment was made clear in the OP. You claim to be protective of firsthand personal experiences, yet your willingness to attack those of another poster suggests otherwise.
  7. KirbyDome89
    The poster isn't privy to those private dealings or where she is getting that info from either so I believe the same understanding should be shown to the individual. It sounds to me like the post you're quoting is a personal experience as well. I would hesitate to tell somebody to "back the **** up," simply because their default position differs from yours. **Before people freak out, no, this isn't a defense of Sano or a profession of his innocence in any way. It's a reminder that this thread shouldn't turn into a battle for moral high ground.
  8. KirbyDome89
    There is a difference between withholding judgement and skipping an investigation. Feel free to judge until your heart is content but you've stated in multiple posts that investigating the matter isn't necessary. It is. I disagree that a twitter post is enough to warrant disciplinary action by the Twins. Can you imagine if they decided to hand down a punishment with nothing more than a tweet to back it up? The MLBPA would have a field day. Like it or not, a proper vetting of the events by both sides is the best course of action.
  9. KirbyDome89
    It isn't about protecting his job or reputation. It's about protecting his rights as the accused. Do you realize what a horrible precedent would be set if the burden of proof lay on the accused? That is precisely the reason other posters have been vocal about their dislike of social media and the "mob justice," it dishes out. We can sympathize with a victim having to go through the difficult process of rehashing a trauma but at the same time understand the necessity of it.
  10. KirbyDome89
    Agree that they need to start adding this offseason. They aren't winning the Kershaw sweepstakes next winter and they likely could end up paying more for lesser pitcher than they would get this year. This team sinks or swims with the young core. Holding off on adding to payroll in order to find a baseline for that group just means another year of talent on rookie contracts burned.
  11. KirbyDome89
    IMO the initial interest has to come from a team source. I can buy the idea that agents might overplay just how interested other teams are in order to gain some leverage, but I can't imagine any of them outright fabricating a team's interest in a client. Remember, those agents have to work with all 30 MLB teams, beyond just a singular transaction. I doubt organizations would be too happy if their name was linked to misleading "leaks." I also have a hard time seeing an organization being receptive to working with an agent adept at that practice.
  12. KirbyDome89
    Where else, other than the Twins, are those media outlets getting the information about which players the team is "targeting?"
  13. KirbyDome89
    Agreed, they're past the point of "wait and see." The time for that was when they were losing 90+ games a season. I was as vocal as anybody in regards to shedding veterans and seeing what they had in young arms/bats, but that's a "luxury," a bad team can afford. A team that has real playoff aspirations shouldn't be banking on question marks and unproven players filling out a bullpen or rotation. One or the other in a few spots is acceptable but a rotation and bullpen that are revolving doors don't instill much confidence in a serious playoff run, The new FO seems quicker in some cases to remedy ineffectiveness so I'm ok at this point with younger arms forcing their way into playing time. This core only has a few seasons left before FA. I'd rather not watch the pitching staff burn another one.
  14. KirbyDome89
    Agreed that Kinley didn't cost the Twins Burdi or Bard. The decision to leave them unprotected was made before Kinely was even an option. That said I do think the moves are more related than some are acknowledging. Burdi was the highest upside, and could've been a DL stash so it's clearly the most head scratching and really not a 40 man issue, at least to start the season. It really boils down to Bard and Kinley. Yes, they had, and still have room on the 40 man for each of them, but we're all banking on them using that space for another FA right? If they had protected Bard he likely was the first one off the 40 man. I'm guessing the FO thought they had a better shot of retaining him in the Rule V rather than expose him to waivers if they sign a FA and have to remove Bard from the 40 man. Personally I would've rather they kept both Bard and Burdi and left Kinley alone. Options are nice. I think the 40 man decisions prior to draft were made with FA and a draft selection in mind. It may not have been Kinley explicitly, but the FO was comfortable giving those 40 man spots to somebody other than Bard so to me the relation runs deeper than simply transactions during the same event.
  15. KirbyDome89
    If the Twins went into the draft and only had their eyes on a player or two and each happened to be selected before the Twins had a chance to pick it would make sense. Of course you're risking losing the player you leave unprotected in that scenario as well. That isn't a defense of the Rule V selection (Kinley) and it likely isn't what played out, but theoretically if the player they exposed was considered the best player left I can see the logic in selecting that individual.
  16. KirbyDome89
    Prospects and $ are two different currencies. The best part about spending $ on pitching is that it costs 0 prospects.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Those decisions have to be made because of the Rule V pick(s). That isn't a "weak link." You can agree or disagree with selections but pretending that managing a roster, 40 or 25 man, isn't part of participating in the draft is at best illogical.
  18. KirbyDome89
    Roster management that is necessitated by participation in the Rule 5. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  19. KirbyDome89
    There's a difference between holding an opinion based on available data, and trying to invalidate an opinion because the person holding it doesn't belong to a particular group. Hopefully it plays out in a way that doesn't hurt the Twins.
  20. KirbyDome89
    If we're defaulting to authority then we can never question any decision this team makes... You're right, it also involved Bard, another pitcher with a more successful track record than Kinley.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Agreed that the need is greater than a mediocre starter. If they're spending FA $ I'd rather see them go after Darvish but Lynn still provides an upgrade.
  22. KirbyDome89
    They're both flawed players. IMO if they're taking a chance on either I would much rather have Burdi and his injury history vs. a guy who has very little if any success above A+ in 5 minor league seasons. I hope they do have a much shorter leash with Kinley than they did with Haley but that also makes the decision more confusing. If the experiment lasts no longer than March then they almost certainly would've been better off using that roster spot on Burdi, and if they were still as down on him as they are now they easily could've tried to sneak him through waivers and no matter the outcome they would've been no worse off than they are at this moment. I don't understand how 5 years of minor league stats isn't enough to formulate an opinion on Kinley but 2 months in the Dominican Winter League might be.
  23. KirbyDome89
    If they have such little faith in him making the team the decision not to protect Burdi or Bard looks even worse. Rather than attributing success for moves unmade maybe it's you who should hold your comment and allow the rest to remark about what has actually been done to this point.
  24. KirbyDome89
    It has everything to do with the Rule V draft. Those players selected have to stay on the 25 man roster. The draft IS roster management. You read my post that said the Rule V draft could be used effectively right? Clogging the 25th spot with a pitcher who has limited minor league success and no options is hardly practical.
  25. KirbyDome89
    So after watching the Haley debacle last season the pushback against the decision to force another Rule V pick onto the 25 man is an invalid? You don't have to be a GM to see that the risk/uncertainty they lost was less than the risk/uncertainty the brought in. Add to that the loss of a roster spot and yeah, it isn't difficult to see why the move isn't particularly popular right now. There are plenty of minor league statistics available for all 3 players and some have even been posted in this thread. What's laughable is the argument from authority that seems to be thrown around in some of these threads. Drafting a player in the Rule V burns a 25 man spot. When that player has no business being on a MLB roster it's poor roster management.
×
×
  • Create New...