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
-
Dozier is 29 so I don't think the age gap is really that relevant. In the same way that I don't think Dozier is as bad as that stretch from the end of 15' until the middle of 16', I also don't believe he is the player we saw at the end of last season. That isn't holding anything against him.
-
The only way this was absolutely the right decision is if Dozier repeats (or improves upon) the second half he had last year and the market for 2B suddenly booms. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen.... It would be one thing if they were in talks with other teams at the moment, but if all they can do now is bank on the above criteria and sell us optimism about Dozier leading the Twins to a strong start, I can't see this as anything but disappointing.
-
Passan: Dodgers Nearing Deal for Forsythe
KirbyDome89 replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I think he's being realistic about what Dozier is going to fetch and he sees the Twins turning down a really good prospect at a position of desperation. -
Passan: Dodgers Nearing Deal for Forsythe
KirbyDome89 replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
All we need is a refusal to trade him at the deadline followed by a contract extension and the new FO will be members of the TR school of success.... -
How Does Keeping Dozier Fit With Long-Term View?
KirbyDome89 replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Its good to see that the Sano pitchfork mob is making an early return this year.... -
How Does Keeping Dozier Fit With Long-Term View?
KirbyDome89 replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Idk if I'm buying that they're reluctant to trade Dozier because they fear backlash from TR loyalists and some potential negative PR but if that truly is a factor in the decision making process then maybe I need to lower my expectations for this new regime.... Realistic trade expectations and opportunity cost have to merge at some point. Holding onto BD does nothing to help this team when they should actually be a contender. If the Twins are watching Dozier walk in 2 years then they've failed. -
So the Twins would have Mauer, Vargas, Park, potentially Sano, Bautista (?), and now Trumbo... Isn't Morneau still available too? Somebody get his agent on the phone...
-
Sure its an assumption, but don't think its a leap to say that adding one of the best pitching prospects in baseball to one of the worst starting rotations will help. I think that is a safer assumption than saying that holding onto Dozier is the right move because he'll continue his career tear, the 2B market will swing in his favor, and his value is at its lowest. I never said I wouldn't like other players back alongside JDL, but if this is the best offer they're going to get then its something that needs to be seriously considered. Holding onto Dozier does this team no good right now.
-
JDL might not be Kershaw, but he certainly would help one of the worst pitching staffs in baseball. Rebuilds aren't completed after one transaction. Moving Dozier for a solid starting pitching prospect would be a step in the right direction.
-
That depends on the context in which you view the trade. If they walk away from this deal and end up trading Dozier at the deadline for a lesser package then it was a good deal. Like I said, we need to be realistic about his value moving forward. That isn't to say they need to take this deal now, or that nothing better could come along, but you also have to consider the likelihood of that happening. If the Twins are going to wait until they're blown away by an offer for BD, then they're likely going to end up holding onto him until he walks in 2 years and that would be a mistake.
-
Sure you are. Demand does drive the market. Part of demand though is appeal. Coming off a 40+ HR season and on a friendly contract for 2 more years, Dozier has a lot of appeal. If he starts next season like he did 2016 or even at a level somewhere between the first and second half of last year, and you combine that with the loss of almost a full year of team control that luster of appeal begins to fade. You're assuming his value can only go up. What if this isn't the valley but rather the peak of his value. You're also banking on the market for a 2B to change considerably as well. It could all work out (I hope it does) but I don't think its unrealistic to look at the current offer and think it might be the best they get for Dozier. Personally I would like to get more for him, but everybody who is so staunchly in favor of the Twins walking away also seems to be ignoring the risk they take by holding onto him. I find it difficult to believe that this is as easy of a decision as some think.
-
You might want to check the ages and salaries of that Cubs core. I don't think anybody is thrilled with JDL + small pieces for Dozier but I also don't think its unfair to ask if this might be their best offer. If the list of teams in the market for a 2B is short and this was the best offer the Twins could get for Dozier at his peak value then I agree with the previous sentiment that we need to be realistic about what kind of package he'll bring back. By holding onto Dozier you're banking on him repeating his career year through the first half, the market for a 2B expanding, and a contending team deciding they're willing to pay more for 1.3 years of Dozier than they were for 2 this offseason. That seems like a lot to ask for.
-
Twins Interested in Jose Bautista?
KirbyDome89 replied to nicksaviking's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
If prospects are voodoo at best then why pay $18+ million for one from a limited number of teams at the deadline when you could pick your own at 35 and pay only slot value or slightly above that? Not all prospects are created equal, but if they're that hellish to deal with why pay Bautista all that money, assume the risk that he's going to produce and not continue to slide, and find a trade partner that is willing to give up a prospect perceived to be better than what was available for the competitive balance pick? That seems like a lot just to land another voodoo prospect. -
Pursuing Jose Bautista Seems Unconventional
KirbyDome89 replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Paying $18+ million for a one year deal and giving up what is essentially a late 1st round pick isn't appealing. Add to that the fact Bautista is a 36 year old who is coming off his worst season since 08', and at this point is only a DH, which is already an overcrowded position. It makes no sense.... His numbers at Target Field are cartoonish but if he is wearing a Twins uniform that means he no longer has the luxury of hitting against one of, if not the worst, pitching staffs in baseball every time he steps into the box there.- 41 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- jose bautista
- brian dozier
- (and 3 more)
-
A direct answer was all I asked for. I may disagree with the human actions taken, and the answer may not be the most satisfying, but its a response that can be appreciated nonetheless.
-
It absolutely is the issue I've brought up this entire thread. It directly comparable because other points were awarded to those involved in the same situation. If you're going tell me that points were doubled because infractions occurred in succession then there must be a ton of members with content bans as all infractions occur in succession. Its boils down to this: You didn't like that I pointed out an obvious disparity in the type of posts that were allowed to stand. Because of that you decided to hammer me. I see the first instance as an uneven application of posting policy. I see the second as a blatant abuse of moderator freedom in enforcing policy. Both of those relate directly to the question I posed in the thread title. My response to another poster was removed because of one line. The mod post was edited because only one line is deemed offensive. One policy violation by me results in 2 warning points to ensure a content creation ban, and entire content deletion. The other policy violation by a mod results in a self assessed point and sentence being edited. There is no uniformity in that handling. If no further responses are offered thats fine. I'm not talking in a circle. I'm looking for a clarification on a question I asked and not a rehashing of personal policy breeches I've already owned. Like I said before, it has been the lack of a concrete or clear answer that has provided the most insight into the question.
-
I'm glad it has received a lot of attention in a short amount of time. That is a good thing all around. I think uncomfortable might be the perfect way to describe the feeling I'm getting from others talking about the application of policy. I can understand the desire to not be pinned down. I'm sure as a mod having that sort of freedom is nice. I'm in favor of that set up, but I would much rather see it used as a way to be lenient rather than severe. If I were to pose my own analogy I think that its like a teacher grading an essay. A rubric (posting policy) is handed out and every paper is expected to include that content. If 2 papers (posts) are turned in and each one lacks one component of the rubric yet one receives a B while another is given a C. That is frustrating. I understand the human element, and like I said I support it as a means of being tolerant. If that same human element is allowed to be used a way to be restrictive or come down harder on others then thats a problem. I wouldn't enjoy the site if it was moderated down to every word of every post. Just like in the OP, I'm not calling into question moderator actions as a whole, rather, I'm pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in the way one issue in one thread was handled one time. I do think I've received an answer, although, it has been more from what hasn't been said or touched upon than what has.
-
I'm not advocating for anybody to be tarred and feathered. I've said nothing along those lines. The issue I have is with the severity of the penalty assessed to me. The only reason to point out that the mod content was allowed to be edited and stand was to show the discrepancy. Chi disclosed that a point was self assessed and I disagreed with the need for that. I'm not on a crusade to bring justice to every poster who crosses a line. I'm simply pointing out that action taken against me was heavy handed and the best way to do that is a direct comparison to another party that was closely involved in the situation. Distrust might be a strong word. Annoyance with the amount of latitude granted when assigning point totals would be more accurate.
-
It did go on for a long time. I want to point out that I never claimed I was singled out by the mod post. I also have stated that I took no offense. Neither or those have anything to do with the concern that I expressed. The feelings of the other poster are irrelevant to the points I've brought up. You've changed the wording of the post. That isn't how that was phrased. I see no way in which calling another members posts "sad and boring," is acceptable and saying another poster is being "condescending and playing the victim card," is not. There is no slant. Each is clearly a violation of posting policy. I'm not contesting that the thread ran off topic. Again though, that is a tangent.
-
I wasn't making the claim that is was aimed only at me. I definitely said "we," in the OP. You absolutely have the right to feel that the discussion in that thread was sad and boring. Maybe some of those involved did as well. I might feel that the way another person uses their time is sad and boring. We're all entitled to those opinions, and honestly I have 0 problem with that. I'm also not offended in the least. The only reason I had for pointing out the overstepping of bounds was in reaction to the penalty I was assessed. I'm definitely not asking for perfection. We don't disagree nearly as much as you may think. Honestly, you're right, those self assigned points aren't warranted. I would encourage you to remove those points as I had requested mine be as well. There also is no need for an apology. Whether I'm offended or not (I'm not) you expressed exactly how you felt and acted in accordance with that. I might disagree with aspects of it, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm owed an apology. You're right, we'll continue to agree to disagree regarding the penalty following our posts. At this point I wouldn't expect the results to change. That is precisely why I decided to highlight what I feel is an inequitable outcome on this forum.
-
My point was that it was allowed to stand until I finally responded, but again, this isn't what the actual discussion is about.
-
A discussion that ultimately answers the question of whether posting policy application is uniform.
-
Admittedly I hadn't read it word for word, but I did understand the general outline. The issue I had wasn't with the fact action was taken, so much as it is with the severity of it. I had an idea that questioning the mod post wasn't going to make anybody happy, but like I said earlier I wasn't aware of this forum either. I also was later able to find that 3 points = 24 ban in another Minncentric forum. Really, what the issue boils down to is the fact that I was given 2 points for one violation to ensure a content creation ban. I would tend to agree with your stance on post editing but can see the merit of the other side. I can't lie, removal of my content while another post is edited is irksome but it wasn't solely the matter in question.
-
Just to be clear, the sentence you quoted me on was a response to the assertion that its was mildly absurd to think that the original mod post was "attacking," and therefore against posting policy. I was refuting that. I agree with you, if that was something I had posted (I didn't) then I would expect to hear from somebody. It isn't the edit action that I took issue with. Its the disparity in consequence. I do trust that most everything is thought over. Like I said in the OP, I'm not trying to turn this into a judicial proceeding.
