Jump to content
Our first free agents ranking has launched, click here to see the top 40+ names in free agency! ×
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 would say its because the mostly white population prefers the culture in which they live. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the American news media would prefer the "American way," of playing as opposed to the latin version. The "Twins Way," was defended by news media in the metro area but I'm sure other teams disagreed with aspects of how the organization was run. Everybody thinks their own culture is the best, such is part of the point of having one. People tend to act in their own best interest and if they believe aspects of their culture to be counter to that they will change. I'm certain if you parsed it down further and compared the DR with Puerto Rico you would find cultural differences that those sides wouldn't agree on. I don't think anybody would be claiming racism then.
  2. KirbyDome89
    That might be about as close to a perfect post as we're going to see. If only a "super like," existed...
  3. KirbyDome89
    His teammate? No. As far as I'm aware its quite taboo to call out teammates. That doesn't mean he endorses the actions. But using the "don't criticize another color," logic, wouldn't calling out Stroman just stoke the racism fire? First he is a racist for calling out latins, now he is a racist for not calling out a black pitcher. I get the point you're making about only criticizing one group, but the Stroman example is awkward.
  4. KirbyDome89
    Sure, I'm not advocating for stopping any conversation. My hesitation is in the immediate labeling of something as racist. (NOT saying Levi did this, just in general) I think too often the first action is to brand actions or comments before thoughtful consideration. IMO it should be the other way around. Would the players be bothered by it? I would have to believe so. I can't see somebody like Kinsler, who apparently prides himself on being old school, not taking exception to on field antics. Would it be written off by the media s "showing emotion?" Thats a good question. Honestly I think the same group that can't stand any change would still have a problem with it and the "Make baseball fun again," crowd would defend it. That said, do I think there would be 0 racial component to the criticism? No. I just feel like the fact that there can be a racial component is used as justification to have an extreme take on issues like this. In a different scenario, if a player like Adam Jones had made the same comments would the first reaction have been racism?
  5. KirbyDome89
    Meh we'll agree to disagree on the subconscious motives of Ian. Idk, I feel like Bryce Harper catches quite a bit of hate for playing a similar style. Baseball is stubborn as $**%. Its infuriating at times. Like John mentioned above I definitely think the aspect of "get off my lawn," plays a big part in the criticism. Oh Jose. Personally not a huge fan so maybe a biased opinion here, but I think he brings quite a bit of criticism on himself.
  6. KirbyDome89
    I agree it certainly can. I just don't see that as the case in this instance. You're right, the way Latin players carry themselves on the field is criticized. Is that because they have brown skin or is that because they're a counterculture? Obviously there will be contribution from each side but regarding Kinsler's remarks I see it as very much the latter.
  7. KirbyDome89
    I just can't subscribe to the line of thinking. There are absolutely aspects of other cultures (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, ect...) that I find appalling, and I'm certain many others do as well. Disagreeing with someone of another skin color doesn't mean you're automatically a racist. Cultural differences/preferences and racism need to stop being conflated. We don't have to agree with his take on the issue, but he should be allowed to voice a critique without being mislabeled and painted as a social pariah.
  8. KirbyDome89
    "Moving him to the pen is not going to keep him from giving up hit and walks" So then its exactly what was said? Coming in from the bullpen for one inning, throwing your 2 plus pitches, and hopefully facing 3 batters is different than trying to work through a lineup 3-4 times as a starter. Very different. I would urge you to take a look at a list of successful relievers who struggled as starting pitchers or if you don't want to do any digging just call to mind the last few dominant relievers the Twins had.
  9. KirbyDome89
    So whenever you disagree with aspects of another culture its racism? That seems like a very dangerous standard to set. There are definitely parts of other cultures that I completely disagree with, and I'm sure you can think of some as well, that doesn't mean either of us is a racist. IMO the meaning of the word has essentially devolved to the point of "I disagree with what you're saying." Its unfortunate.
  10. KirbyDome89
    My 2 cents: Clashing cultures doesn't = racism.
  11. KirbyDome89
    So failed starter = failed reliever? Couldn't disagree more with that take.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I think a Santiago vs. Nolasco comparison would be a more accurate indicator of who won that trade. So far it looks like LA. I was thrilled to see that Nolasco was traded last summer until I read the details of the trade. With the arbitration contract they gave Santiago and the 4 million they're paying LA this season the two are basically the same price (12 - 12.5 million). The Twins literally just swapped starting pitchers and the price to do it was giving up a former top prospect who even if he flames out as a starter (and so far he has) could still be a valuable bullpen piece. I have a hard time looking at this trade and saying the Twins got the better end of it.
  13. KirbyDome89
    Much needed good news after the past couple weeks...
  14. KirbyDome89
    Hammer meet nail
  15. KirbyDome89
    Again, this isn't about spending just to spend. I've been clear about that. We'll chalk it up to a difference in philosophy.
  16. KirbyDome89
    The Twins pitching at the MLB level is $%&$ing garbage. Gonsalves had another should flare up. The Twins insist it isn't it isn't a big deal, which means he'll land on the DL sometime midseason with a serious injury as is typical Twins fashion. Jay is now a non-factor for the future of the rotation. Stewart can't strike anybody out. Its all concerning, including Gordon now playing some 2B. As a whole it makes the loss of the #6 pick from the rotation that much worse. I have seen very little, if any argument against him pitching from the bullpen. I think the timing is curious but I don't have a massive issue with the switch. I'm not sure why you seem so perplexed as to the concern expressed over losing a potential starter. Its a BIG deal. Right now the house is burning to the ground and the hose to put it out is losing water. People should be concerned....
  17. KirbyDome89
    The fact that a new FO made the decision to move him to the bullpen doesn't change the fact that he was drafted to be a starter. No longer having the #6 overall pick as a potential candidate to fill a rotation spot hurts....a lot.
  18. KirbyDome89
    It absolutely is. The available payroll is what they decide to make it. The idea that this franchise can't afford to pay a player $20 million per season moving forward is where people start to lose me. They're definitely a mid market team, but they prefer everybody to treat them as if they're small market. They're sitting at a little over 30 million dollars under the league average team salary right now. Mauer comes off the books after next season. MLB revenue continues to increase, meaning more sharing is generated. Somehow despite all this the Twins payroll has been decreasing over the last few seasons and now they can't even afford to hand out a contract close to Mauer's without drying up the well? I think the reality is that it is just easier to believe that this franchise can't spend above an imaginary line because they've refused to do it for so long...
  19. KirbyDome89
    Thanks for the FO update... I must be misreading the posts defending the selection of Jay at #6 then. The criticism of the move is about what the Twins thought he was going to be when he was drafted and where he is now. When you select a player #6 overall with the idea he'll be a starting pitcher and two seasons later he is going to be in the bullpen full time that is a bad selection at that spot. If he becomes Andrew Miller as some have stated then sure, the pick doesn't look so bad, but that isn't the case right now. To me, that issue isn't in the lease bit moot/debatable.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Not sure where that implication came from but yeah I know. If baseball was capped then yeah it would. However, its the same thing I said in a earlier post; they're moderate players in FA at best so a large deal shouldn't change how they're operating. That big signing only "hurts," them as much as they allow it to. Do I believe they'll spend that money? Not a chance....
  21. KirbyDome89
    Of course I agree, if they're ripping it down there isn't value in the 3-4 year window. The signing is only viable if Buxton, Sano, Kepler, ect take more steps forward and it looks like a core is forming. I get the prospect volatility aspect, but they're also necessary. Not all prospects are created equal and its often the elite ones (lowest chance to bust) that must be moved to bring back established talent. No, nobody misses Hicks, but those deals go both ways as well. I'm certain the D-backs would redo that Miller/Swanson trade in a heartbeat. If they had a glut of young talent in the minors or if they were a respectable MLB team then yeah it would make total sense to me to deal some prospects for a starting pitcher. I just see the Twins lacking in so many areas right now that for me, spending cash to keep some of the talent they do have is the lesser of two evils.
  22. KirbyDome89
    So they drafted him at #6 because he had the "stuff," to be a front of the rotation piece. Now they're moving him back to the bullpen because he doesn't have the enough of a mix to be a starter. But this doesn't look like a bad pick and the move doesn't have any negative impact on future rotations? Hmmm....those don't seem to mesh. I'm not sure which is more taxing; the mental gymnastics performed to rationalize the move or the physical toll from bending over backwards to defend it.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Performance risk doesn't discriminate between a trade or FA signing. Yes, the last years of big contracts rarely are good years, but they also aren't counted on to be stellar seasons in terms of performance. No team signs a player to a seven year deal and expects all those seasons to be elite, its just like you said they're paying for roughly 3-4 years solid performance and the rest of the contract is the price for those good years and keeping their young talent. Personally I would rather the Twins use cash instead of prospects to bring in talent. The rebuild is centered around drafting and developing (insert joke here) players. Giving those players up via trade feels a lot like robbing peter to pay paul. If they were a pitcher away from a WS then I could understand it, but right now they need all the young talent they can get.
  24. KirbyDome89
    I think a lot of the push for signing a front of the rotation starter IS about how the money is spent though. The Twins have been moderate players at best in FA, I don't think that has to change if they open it up and sign an ace type pitcher. Given the current state of the pitching staff and performances by pitching prospects it isn't crazy to think the only young arm they have with a chance to be that #1 starter is Gonsalves and hes still a long shot. They need to do something to fix this horrendous pitching. They've been unable to move Dozier and if they refuse to dip into the market to sign top tier FAs the only other option for bringing back top end talent is trading away their own top young talent. Personally I would rather endure a 7 year 150 million dollar contract than watch former Twins prospects turn into quality major league players with other teams.
  25. KirbyDome89
    No? It isn't an expected outcome which is precisely why I don't buy the idea that they were just on the wrong side of luck. Its obvious the chances of being swept in three straight series are extremely low. Its a .2% chance of losing that many games in a row. If somebody is going to point to the reason for all those losses as simply bad luck then like I said before, they must be the unluckiest team in all of baseball. I agree you'll never see a line like that for a playoff game. I have no idea what the lines were for those games (too lazy to check) but I'm sure they should've won at least a couple during that 9 game stretch. The argument isn't that they were 0-9 bad or 3-19 bad, its that given the percentage chances or reaching those records, the idea that they were just "unlucky," seems ridiculous. IMO other factors (inferiority compared to competition) played a large part in their hapless postseason performance.
×
×
  • Create New...