Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,504

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    Idk why we need to imply he'd be a malcontent to justify the move. What is this culture?
  2. 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.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Yeah Idk Mike, my post was in reference to the framing. I'm staying away from the rest of it.
  4. KirbyDome89
    They wouldn't shell out for front end guys but they'll pay mediocre vets $20M? Yikes.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. KirbyDome89
    I'm not making a case for Montas specifically, but in your scenario he's a known commodity in the sense that if the Twins were to deal for him, they're expecting 2ish production based on a track record, albeit limited. They're giving up a set of players with zero major league success who themselves have minor league warts. Nobody is arguing a Cy Young finalist is coming back. Using a farm system to graduate players incrementally and supplement an existing framework is, of course, utilized by every organization. Throwing 5-7 arms (including Ober and Ryan) into a rotation that's Dylan Bundy and nobody else isn't remotely the same thing.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Sure, and for every one of them there are 100x as many guys taken at, or above, their draft positions that wash out without making any sort of impact.
  18. KirbyDome89
    You're also receiving a known commodity of equivalent value. My point was that they can audition plenty of guys while adding a stable rotation arm; the two aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, FA was an abject failure, but that shouldn't be a rationale for them to eschew other means of acquiring talent. In other words, the prospects are the fulcrum on which the FO will pivot towards either a full on rebuild or actually committing to supplementing the roster. I think that's more of a stall/half measure than an actual plan.
  19. KirbyDome89
    There's nothing stopping the Twins from "finding out what they have," while simultaneously adding proven talent. If they end up with 2 frontline guys that's more than lucky; none of this group profiles as such. Rather than holding them accountable, we're giving the FO a pass to waste a season while waffling about which direction to go.
  20. KirbyDome89
    So because the Twins chose to sit out FA, and trading for one frontline starter doesn't solve all their issues, the answer is to cross fingers and do nothing? Waiting for the stars to align is a great way to ensure it never occurs. If the plan all along (a rather convenient shift of the goalposts/distraction from recent failures) was to graduate prospects then it'd make more sense, not less, to have some sort of stability around which these prospects could be integrated. I doubt the Twins make a move for anything close to a frontline SP, but that shouldn't be spun into some kind of positive about preserving the future.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Do I see them as options (Gordon only in another totally lost season?) Yes. Do I believe the Twins do? No. What's the controversy? Please, Gordon couldn't get reps at SS despite the season being over and Simmons being the worst offensive player in the league. I hope Polanco is, and if/when Lewis debuts at SS I'm right there with you cheering him. His only decent offensive output in the last 4 years was the season he juiced. I really don't care about early careers numbers. We aren't going to agree here. Why are we fixated on a washed vet signing a minor league deal? I have no doubt the Twins start someone else at SS opening day, but that was never my point right? Precisely why I bolded the part about perspective. I've said my peace on depth vs. bodies. Maybe you're right and Beckham is plan D,E, or Z. I hope so....
  22. KirbyDome89
    I think I've been pretty clear that I don't feel it's likely the Twins plug any of those options in at SS. Martin, Lewis, and Gordon seem like pipe dreams and I don't believe the team wants to move Polanco off 2B. Beckham hasn't even played in the majors the last 2 years, he juiced in '19, and he wasn't close to an average hitter in '18. Maybe we have different definitions of league average. They gambled on a Cave bounce back and lost last year. He was solid in '18 and '19. Right now, yeah, he's bad depth. Beckham's had a longer career, at least at the major league level, but I'd stop short of calling it better. If he was coming off a run of three year run (2018-2020) like Cave was last year then maybe this would be a different conversation, but you've already acknowledged his defensive issues and the I guess we'll agree to disagree on his offensive prowess. What do I want out of depth players? Be part of the team's plans moving forward, or have some sort of plus quality that aids the team in the present. I don't see Beckham doing either. Yeah, I don't see them signing a starting SS and a utility player capable of covering the position, at least with Gordon and Arraez on the roster. Do you? Honestly, are you convinced they'll move Polanco or reverse course on the prospects? They still need to spend on at least 2-3 rotation arms plus the bullpen. I don't know why the scope for a backup SS needs to be narrowed to the discard bin. Other avenues exist. I gave you options on this team that would be better in one way or another. I'm not digging through 29 other rosters + farm systems to compile a list of replacement level SS, or arguing what FA IFers are available/willing to play part time. If the validity of anything I've argued is predicated on said list than you win.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Whoever they sign or trade for, Polanco, Martin, Lewis, hell even rotating Gordon through if we're going full tank mode. That's 4-5 names on the team that do more for the Twins present/future than Beckham. It certainly could be. Of course, that's why you find a utility option, or ideally turn to someone in house. Sure, Refsnyder cratered in the 2nd half after returning from injury, and maybe he's a bad example, but he was also option D behind Buxton, Cave, and Kepler. If that's Beckham's role, option D, then fine, it's already a dumpster fire by that point. Nothing the Twins have done or said suggests any of the prospect options are in play, we can hope they're willing to consider moving Polanco. That leaves us with an option B who has been a below average defender at the position the previous 5 or so years. The last time he was on a major league field (2 years ago) he was getting popped for PEDs, and the season prior to his usage was on par with the Refsnyder career OPS you dislike.
  24. KirbyDome89
    Again, the issue is the role. If the Twins are willing to plug in Martin/Lewis at SS, or move Polanco it's a different story, but those options seem unlikely. As it stands, Beckham is a tweaked hamstring in April away from being the starting SS. If he's in AAA all year and truly just minor league filler then it doesn't matter. Your Plan B, particularly at SS, should be actual depth, not just a warm body.
  25. KirbyDome89
    He's a negative defender in both corners, and you can't K 33% of the time and rock a sub .700 OPS if that's the case.
×
×
  • Create New...