Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,616

  • 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'm not assigning fault, I'm adjusting the frame. It's going to be years before this "debate," is remotely close to settled.
  2. KirbyDome89
    I'll start with saying that I don't give a **** about rehashing whether or not Berrios should have been moved. The longest FA pitching contract in 6 seasons at the helm for this FO is 2 years. Their two largest trade acquisitions to date, Odorizzi and Gray, each had/have 2 years remaining. Rather than extend the best pitcher this franchise has had in nearly two decades (an admittedly low bar to clear) they opted to trade him with 1.5 years remaining. They completely sat out FA this offseason despite desperately needing arms. There's a ton of evidence/activity or lack thereof, that suggests this FO won't commit years or money to pitchers. That shouldn't be debatable at this point.
  3. KirbyDome89
    As much as I'd love "won't spend above X," to be a universally acknowledged truth on TD, it isn't, and arguments where contract amounts/length are at the center veer into bad faith territory (not accusing you of doing this) because of it. You're right, it's a dead horse, but we also need to acknowledge that removing an option from the table isn't the same thing as never having that option to begin with.
  4. KirbyDome89
    People were complaining about him last year while he was posting a 127 OPS+ too.
  5. KirbyDome89
    Donaldson's contract wasn't a hindrance; we need to move past that notion. Even after acquiring Gray the Twins were still roughly $40M short of payroll for Opening Day last season.
  6. KirbyDome89
    My fear is that it won't be utilized. I can absolutely see a scenario where 15M is spent and spun as necessary for whatever transpires, but payroll trends in the wrong direction. I don't view the NY trade as necessary for whatever hypothetical signing occurs at SS.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Sure, if he falls apart early this season it looks smart. If he posts another high OPS+ and slows down next year, eh it's probably at a wash, assuming Urshela's 2021 is an aberration. I guess I'm just less certain this is the year Donaldson stops mashing baseballs. All Twins fans should feel this way.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Sanchez's road splits were pretty bad offensively last year to match his atrocious D. He's an obvious downgrade. They don't really lose defensively at 3B, but Donaldson has been basically an automatic 125 OPS+ or better since becoming a regular. That's absolute peak Urshela and he has to find his way there again. You're right, if they absolutely max out all the $$ this year then there's value in the swap. If payroll is slashed and I have to listen to "they've got X amount for down the road..." then yeah.
  9. KirbyDome89
    No doubt, but I think Pineda's injury certainty plays into that need. Bundy threw 90 innings last year, and is far from a lock to make it through the year, be it injury or effectiveness. Ryan and Ober are going to be on their own pitch counts too. Gray is the only current starter they can unleash on Day 1 and not have to babysit.
  10. KirbyDome89
    The current rotation, or lack thereof for that matter. I'll take him, but it's not a move to be celebrated. It's a bare minimum type signing. I think a lot of posters (not lumping you in here) overestimate how many innings a lot of these prospects will be able to throw in the majors this season. If it's Pineda vs. ownership pocketing more $$ and running out an even more washed vet and/or AAAA filler I'll take the former.
  11. KirbyDome89
    Idk why we need to imply he'd be a malcontent to justify the move. What is this culture?
  12. KirbyDome89
    This is where I'm at. Story can be had for money, which they had plenty of prior to dumping Donaldson's salary. The Twins are now worse at C and 3B in addition to a hole at SS. If Story, or another big move happens, the NY swap will certainly be spun as the Twins "needing," to clear space, but the $40M+ gap between current day and payroll the previous season says otherwise.
  13. KirbyDome89
    Yeah Idk Mike, my post was in reference to the framing. I'm staying away from the rest of it.
  14. KirbyDome89
    They wouldn't shell out for front end guys but they'll pay mediocre vets $20M? Yikes.
  15. KirbyDome89
    They don't have to be, and nobody is arguing they should be. They're $40M+ short of last season's payroll right now. There's room to spend and it's painfully obvious they won't be tossing all that cash at the rotation. Did you watch Garver and his .875 OPS last season? You want to plug a .670 OPS into the 5 hole? That GG came at 3B, in a 60 game season; he was a league average defender at SS last year.
  16. KirbyDome89
    100% agree, I think it was a long shot regardless, but that ship sailed the moment they decided to sit out the initial FA wave. To me this move doesn't make them better in the interim, it's not setting them up at the position for the future, and it seems like floor is being prioritized over ceiling, which doesn't make sense if you aren't going to be competitive. I can't speak for Chief, but that's how I read the "losing move," comment. Technically it wouldn't have to be 2 WAR right? They gave up an equivalent amount to bring in IKF. It's really the Jeffers/Rortvedt platoon, which was probably a tick below replacement level last season, vs. whatever hypothetical they could've slotted in at SS.
  17. KirbyDome89
    They traded Mitch Garver for a guy who's average defensively at SS and below average offensively. Rortvedt struggled mightily last year, and Jeffers wasn't great with the bat, even by catching standards. I wasn't sure there was a worse option than Simmons returning but this has me rethinking that stance...
  18. KirbyDome89
    Conversely I think it could also de-incentivize mediocre teams. Why spend money in FA or prospect capital in trades to add proven talent when you can sell hope, shoot for 84 wins, and back into the postseason?
  19. KirbyDome89
    Oh but I did. Remember that part about the collective always being greater than any slice you wish to cut from it? Again, that's not even an actual counter-argument. It's also why I didn't take the bait on going down the WAR rabbit hole.
  20. KirbyDome89
    This tends to be lost anytime the topic comes up. The mere mention of trading for a single player ruffles feathers to such a degree that any such transaction becomes "selling the farm," "mortgaging the future," or is characterized as a stupid baseball decision, despite the fact that even the best rotations in the game rely on help outside of the organization. I'm not tied to Montas either, and I've said as much, but if the FO truly believes that a few members of this prospect group will lift the team back to WS contention, then I see a ton of value, both presently and in the future, in acquiring a stable rotation piece around which to integrate the upcoming arms. Obviously you'd want that stability for more than just 2 years.
  21. KirbyDome89
    This entire thread is a debate about whether or not the Twins should be spending in FA and/or trades to improve the rotation. The Rays were brought up as an example of why the Twins should cling to every arm they have, and when it was pointed out that TBs rotation relied rather heavily on FA signings and trade acquisitions you shifted the goalposts. Love it. WAR for Wacha and Hill isn't relevant to the point that was made; it's a purposeful distraction.
  22. KirbyDome89
    Rasmussen was acquired midseason, and Collin McHugh made a handful of starts for them as well. When you break it down nearly 50% of the Rays' starts last season were made by pitchers that spent no time in their minor league system. This whole thing went off the rails when the risk of signing a high value FA was equated to running out a rotation of Bundy + prospects. There's no coming back from that.
  23. KirbyDome89
    No, listing a couple starters having a down year in SD doesn't invalidate my talking points anymore so than me rattling off successful FA signings/trade acquisitions proves I'm correct. I could easily ask you to list examples of teams that started with a rotation equivalent to Bundy + prospects, refused to spend in FA or acquire talent via trades, and was competing within 2 years, but that's an exercise in futility, particularly with you. Oh, you mean the number of teams willing to pay via FA or trade to acquire top end talent is small? You literally cannot acquire something another team doesn't have, i.e. you can't trade for a player until that individual has been drafted by/signed to another team, so of course the "total impact," of the collective is greater. You're not actually arguing anything by pointing that out. Mike just posted an interesting FG article about managing prospect expectations and they touch on the team building aspect at the end. Check it out.
  24. KirbyDome89
    I haven't see the argument that the prospects can flame out and this team will still be fine, but I skim. The math doesn't exactly work in a way where 12 of X is better than 1 of Y. I'm pessimistic about the FO signing a trade acquisition as well, but I've grown exhausted by the notion that their self imposed handicaps, which played an integral role in the disaster that was last season, are now vital parts of a plan to getting the team back on track. The angst over certainty seems to be hyper focused on one side here.
  25. KirbyDome89
    You're arguing semantics. Teams are paying for a track record of MLB success, even if it's a limited one. I don't have solid numbers off the top of my head, but I'd imagine that as far as volatility goes, prospects are very likely the higher risk commodity. Boiling it down to "nothing is a sure thing," and equating SD's rotation to the current state of MN's is a stretch to say the least.
×
×
  • Create New...