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
    "Handing out big contracts to names like Wade Davis or Greg Holland could end up preventing money being spent elsewhere." "a long term/high ceiling starter would make for one successful offseason." So are we Darvish or bust at this point? Unless they're committing $ to a front end starter they shouldn't have to penny pinch in the relief market, and even then the dumpster diving probably isn't warranted. Right now the only "building," they've done is adding a 41 year old reliever and burning a 25 man spot on a Rule V pick. Hopefully some significant moves are made in the near future.
  2. KirbyDome89
    The Twins are bringing in the same types of players they're exposing to the Rule V. If it's "pointless," to consider what they're giving up then isn't it "pointless," to participate in the Rule V altogether? I'm not a fan of losing Burdi, especially considering what they brought back, but I do think the Rule V can be used effectively. For that to be the case the player(s) you select should project better than what you've given up. I'm not certain that's the case here.
  3. KirbyDome89
    "Not the $." Exactly, I'm talking about the financial impact, not how long his leash is.
  4. KirbyDome89
    "very attainable," incentives suggests to me they're likely more usage/durability based. Unless he melts down to start the season Rodney will likely be able to hold on long enough in this bullpen to reach the necessary checkpoints.
  5. KirbyDome89
    I understand the volatility of relief pitching. It's one of the reasons I'm hoping the Twins eventually start using their bullpen as a feeder for young arms looking to join the starting rotation. That said, I've seen this signing called low risk, and I agree that it is. If Rodney implodes at 41 years old the $6M owed isn't going to sink the Twins. If we're shrugging off losing $6M this season why does a reliever going belly up in year 2 of a $15M deal become an issue? If the point is having no confidence in a reliever returning value to start a multi year deal then perhaps the issue is signing relief help at all and not so much the number of years committed.
  6. KirbyDome89
    As simply a bullpen addition the move is fine. Given how analytically driven this FO strives to be, I was hoping nontraditional bullpen use might be one of the first noticeable on field indicators. The emphasis placed on his career saves, his "closing experience," and the apparent desire for a "closer of the future," suggest more rigid bullpen roles.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Best description for a low risk/high reward gamble for 2019.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Marte signed that contract in July. It's mid December. By early November only two teams aside from MN (Yankees and Rangers) had $3M to spend. In fact at that time, over a month ago mind you, only seven teams had more than the $800K that Marte just signed for, and the Rays just had to make a trade with one of those teams (Seattle) to get to that number. The market today vs. the market July 2nd is vastly different so the fact another team didn't jump up and offer him another $3M contract isn't particularly indicitive of anything other than the fact teams didn't have near the $ resources at their disposal at this point in the year.
  9. KirbyDome89
    I'm not proclaiming they can predict with 100% certainty who will and won't make it, the point was that teams don't invest resources into players they don't believe can help. "if that likelihood is lowered, and probably the upside is lowered ad well, then he has less value." If we can agree that projecting MLB futures is an inexact science then can we also agree that the italicized is full of presumptions? Apples and oranges. We aren't talking about a house or a used car, we're talking about a 16 year old kid. The Twins leveraged a "condition," which hasn't had any effect on his performance thus far and has 0 promise to do so moving forward, for the chance to get a discount. If we're talking from strictly a business standpoint they're well within their rights to operate in the way they have, but ethically I have some issues with the decision.
  10. KirbyDome89
    No, I can't imagine he's the only player to have a delayed physical, and if it's due to visa issues that totally makes sense. That still puts the failed physical 2 months prior to any indication the Twins had decided to step away and had regained IBP $. Fair enough, I guess I view it a little more black and white. He has obviously been extensively scouted and the vision issue didn't affect those reports. If the Twins aren't comfortable committing $3M to him after the physical it's absolutely fine, but the renewed interest is where I get lost. I'm in the camp of either they think he can play or he can't. If they truly think the vision will be problematic down the line then by all means walk away, but the discomfort with offering $3M vs. the comfort/interest with whatever lower number rubs me the wrong way. I'm not certain how many/what other factors played into other teams interest in him at this point. TB did trade one of their own prospects just to add IBP $ to sign him so not all clubs may be on the same page in terms of how the vision issued is viewed.
  11. KirbyDome89
    Exactly, it's odd that they were mum on the entire process when they had to know the $ amounts would be made public knowledge. I haven't read a specific date either.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I would love for the Twins to clear up: 1) Why the late announcement of the voided contract if he failed the physical during the summer? 2) Was the physical done in November and if so why so late? 3) If the eye issue is concerning enough to void the original contract why are they interested in signing him now? Odd timing of events and similarly odd interest if the medicals are as concerning as posters have made it seem.
  13. KirbyDome89
    I think the name is carrying a lot of weight in this instance. Don't get me wrong, he's a clear upgrade over anything they have right now, but only having him for 2 years is tough. It depends on what they would have to give up for archer but 4 years at least gets them to the FA years of Buxton, Sano, ect. Cole for 2 years is easier to swallow if by some miracle they decide to spend $$ and get Darvish.
  14. KirbyDome89
    It sounds like people are conflating the dislike for the Kintzler move with a desire to "go all in," at the deadline. It's possible to agree that gutting the farm for a short term rental is a bad idea, and at the same time realize removing the top bullpen piece for a marginal prospect probably wasn't the best decision either.
  15. KirbyDome89
    It's embarrassing no doubt. This is the same group that had no problem using Carl Pohlad (whining about wanting a new stadium, but unwilling pay himself) as a talking head for their empty contraction threats in an effort to force cities into shouldering the burden of new stadiums.
  16. KirbyDome89
    I think a more appropriate example of a fanatical position is counting on a marginal prospect as long term improvement. If the Kintzler trade was one in a series of veterans being moved for prospects then sure, that would've made sense but if they were going to essentially stand pat then why give him up? It's hard to say that bringing in a "meh," prospect really improves the long term outlook for the team. It's not hard to say that losing an all star reliever certainly doesn't help the in season outlook. Management 101 goes beyond being a slave to numbers, context and circumstance are equally meaningful. The on field product was consistently outperforming statistical expectations. At some point the team is just better than expected, even if it happens to be by a wide margin. I'm not sure how that was reflected, if at all, by whatever formula was used to arrive at 5%.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Idk what's more disgusting; watching the Yankees get even better or the way the Miami organization operates...
  18. KirbyDome89
    Perhaps it was luck. I think that's a pretty clear cut situation where correlation doesn't equal causation. It directly contrasts with the premise of the article. The article was praising the new FO for the moves they've made. Some have pointed out that they may be getting credit for moves that weren't necessarily helpful. Given the limited number of moves/decisions this FO has made I'd say the deadline decisions do make a difference in how the FO is viewed. If you're looking for an argument about whether or not the Twins need front end rotation help I doubt you'll find it.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Maybe I misunderstood the deals with LA and Seattle but I thought they traded for the right to spend that 1M and if they don't it comes back to MN. Now that I'm thinking about I'm guessing they would obviously spend their budget so yeah....
  20. KirbyDome89
    Somewhere around 1.2 M left left over from the trades plus what now comes back from Seattle right? Doesn't that put them very close to 2.5 M? Or is that way off?
  21. KirbyDome89
    Why can't it be a case of making an ill advised move but getting a positive result? I was pushing for decisiveness at the deadline one way or another. Either sell big or bring in real help. Instead it was another "middle of the road," trade deadline for the Twins. I'm assuming we can agree that the team was better with Kintzler than some low level prospect. The way the game played out in October isn't particularly relevant to the argument being made against the decision making. The point was that the team was still in contention for that WC spot when the move was made. They had no idea if they would reach the WC game and if they did how much they would have to rely on the bullpen. If you're not making significant moves in one direction or another why trade away a late inning bullpen piece? Aren't you better off just keeping Kintzler at that point?
  22. KirbyDome89
    It isn't bringing in Darvish that has posters concerned. It's the fact they've done nothing to address the major issues in the rotation. The evaluation period is over and it's time for moves to start being made. I think that's all some want to see. Hopefully we have some clarity in the next few months. However, until some of those needs are addressed I don't thinks it's unfair to withhold applause for the new FO.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Definitely interesting to see their strategy during the draft and adding picks with the international money is a bonus that could look even better if the $ comes back. "But as far as winning in 2018 is concerned, Falvey and Levine haven't done much of anything." I think this is the larger issue though, and it doesn't apply to just 18' but the following seasons as well. I'm anxious to see how this offseason goes, but as of right now it's hard for me to say they're crushing it, even if the comparison is the previous FO.
  24. KirbyDome89
    No, and it's a fair point. I said as much in my OP, this could all be nothing and the Twins could easily clear it up. I do think it's odd that he would sign in early July and not have a physical until November. I also think it's weird not to announce he failed it during the summer if they knew the information would eventually be made public.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Yeah man, I said as much...."Obviously it's all conjecture at this point." Have you read a single post that claims anything the Twins have said is false? I haven't. What I've said is the timing of events seems funny. An unlikely MLB career, the "good relationship," with the team and the lack of noise from other clubs have all been used as evidence the Twins didn't do anything out of the ordinary. That all could be true. However, isn't that speculation as well? It's far from firm evidence. I don't see any definitive claims that the Twins are "playing dirty," but I do see questions about the circumstances, and I don't think it's wrong to ask them.
×
×
  • Create New...