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
    Removing prime production years and using a SSS don't really jive with "hard facts." Teams spend money on FAs that make them more competitive every offseason. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating the merit of signings on an individual basis.
  2. KirbyDome89
    The history of FA, or a selective history? You want to sign them because you have a hole that isn't able to be adequately filled by internal options. If you aren't filling those holes, and getting better over time, I don't know how you expect to reach the talent and/or win threshold where you yourself would consider signing a top dollar pitcher. If your answer is draft & development, it's clear that doesn't occur linearly. We'll just disagree on the generalization that FA SPs turn into pumpkins after 1-2 years. I understand there's risk/volatility involved, but the same goes for drafting and developing players. It makes zero sense not to utilize each avenue concurrently if the goal is to win a WS.
  3. KirbyDome89
    You're missing the point; waiting for the stars to align, or assuming that they will, isn't a viable strategy. Teams need to take advantage of an opportunity to get better when available, not hold out until 95% of the roster is set and/or bank of that same opportunity existing down the line.
  4. KirbyDome89
    What you're advocating for isn't a realistic goal. High end starters aren't signing 1-2 year deals and waiting for all the pieces to fall into place, i.e. pulling the trigger when you're "a piece or two away," is a good way to ensure you're constantly short that piece or two.
  5. KirbyDome89
    If the Twins won't play in FA then nobody should be off limits as far as trades to bring back pitching are concerned. I'd rather that not be the case, but this team can't forgo the option to buy front end pitching, designate top prospects as untouchable, and then expect to develop a staff when there isn't a single prospect that profiles even on the level of Berrios.
  6. KirbyDome89
    Having a career year isn't development. I'm going to pass on splitting hairs over which bottom dwelling teams are worse. In the last 20 years + the Twins haven't been good at identifying, developing, or "polishing," pitchers. That's objectively true. Again, we can pick out maybe one pitcher per decade that other teams coveted long term. This FO has repeatedly stated their goal is to build a sustainable winner. We agree that to this point they've failed mightily in FA. Trades haven't yielded any long term stability or success. We're into year 6, the clock is running out on the prospect patience as well. You can cherry pick his worst years at either stop and you very well might win that bet. That's an awfully low bar to clear though. More realistically, I think the odds of Bundy returning to his '16 form, i.e. an averg-ish pitcher, are less than 50%.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Your post was a caution against committing long term. I pointed out the downside to frequent reshuffling. Cruz isn't a pitcher. I wouldn't put Bundy in the same category as either Ray or Gausman, as each of those two had much more success prior to signing "prove it," deals. With Bundy, the ceiling is him returning to league averag-ish form from 5 years ago. If he has a career year, great, but I'm not holding my breath hoping he turns into something he's never shown any indication he's capable of being.
  8. KirbyDome89
    I posted something similar in a thread earlier in the year, but I don't think the prospect reinforcements are as strong as some believe, at least for this season. Duran and Canterino barely pitched last year and each battled elbow injuries. Surgery isn't guaranteed, but those types of injuries usually lead to intervention. Winder's shoulder issues to end the year could fall under the same category, or maybe it just was fatigue (still not great considering he only threw 72 innings.) They had to shut SWR down, not for injury, but because he was pitching so poorly. That leaves Balazovic. Add to this the fact that both Ryan and Ober threw just over 100 innings last year. Neither of them, even if healthy, is going to be able to pitch a full season, unless they're making 4 inning starts. Good luck constructing a bullpen capable of absorbing that on top of the occasional short starts from whoever else is added into the starting mix. If they're putting a bulk of their eggs in the prospect basket they're 100% throwing away the season. Hell, I'd argue that eschewing affordable arms in FA, and barring some big trade(s) for a front line arm this winter they're tossing away more than just this year. Maybe the prospect "luck," completely turns around, but it seems like an unnecessary amount of risk to take on.
  9. KirbyDome89
    We only have to venture back 1 year to see the volatile production of single year signings, and we don't need to time travel at all to see the results of the continued use of that strategy.
  10. KirbyDome89
    Odorizzi and Maeda weren't developed by the Twins. Berrios for sure was a success, but who did he snatch that title from? Liriano maybe? That was 10 years ago. Santana was 20 years ago. We're not that far removed from the Twins teams in the mid 2010s that could barely field two ML caliber pitchers, and right now the outlook isn't exactly roses either. They've had some success with FA starters (very little with the current FO) but even those were very short lived.
  11. KirbyDome89
    Unfortunately the Twins should also be included in that group.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I don't understand the victory lap over a guy who nobody wants to see with the Twins at any point still taking up room on the 40 man...
  13. KirbyDome89
    inb4 "payroll flexibility," "Wes Johnson tweak," "low risk"......yuck
  14. KirbyDome89
    That didn't last long...
  15. KirbyDome89
    I'm with you that judgement in retrospect is ok, and you're right, his performance and availability over the next few seasons is certainly relevant. This deal shouldn't be evaluated solely on the Twins position the day Buxton signs, but I do think current status should weigh heavily into the final verdict. If you feel it's a great move, as most of us do, I don't see much of a quibble. Maybe it's me, but like the overwhelming attitude seems to be that the deal is a win despite the fact something could go wrong.
  16. KirbyDome89
    Literally no reason not to like this deal for the Twins. They're paying a guy who legitimately could win an MVP the same amount they paid for Happ + Colome last year.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Agreed, but he was also a TR signing & extension.
  18. KirbyDome89
    If I can afford the new car at this moment, and I'm trading the old car in at the dealership, i.e. upgrading, then no, I'm not wasting money on the older vehicle when I know I won't recoup anything for it upon the trade. If the Twins wanted to upgrade, then they could've/should've just sought an upgrade. I mean end of the day it's not my money, so I don't really care about that aspect of the Cave situation, but the notion that he's just an insurance policy that enables the team to continue shopping pre and post lockout kinda flies in the face of the Twins seemingly endless commitment to the guy the last few years. I know you're defending the move and not the player here, and you're right, it's early, but they could've plucked a below average CFer who'll hit .200 out of the pile at any point in or out of season. I think they have to see something with Cave if they're willing to commit any amount of $$ to keep him.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Specific examples? No. I couldn't name a single player that signed a contract outside of arbitration and was cut, let alone one that subsequently filed a grievance. I didn't know 1 year contracts for arb eligible players weren't fully guaranteed either. He isn't uncuttable. I just feel like all signs point to him being on the active roster and he has some armor to help ensure that happens. I wouldn't say I'm freaking out. I do think it's poor use of a roster spot.
  20. KirbyDome89
    That's my understanding as well, however I do believe that @Otto von Ballpark linked this site a few days ago which further hammers home the notion that Cave is here to stay. The grievance would be over Cave's ST performance vs. his peers; it would have nothing to do with his '20 or '21 seasons. A team that's supposed to win by building from within, i.e. drafting and developing sold a 2nd round pick for $6M. To me that's a pretty clear indication of where priorities lie. Hughes and Reed each shared a long leash; I view Cave's situation as granting him one longer than I'd prefer as well. I don't doubt that if he's as atrocious as he was last season MN will move on, the quibble is over the opportunity he'll have to prove it one way or another.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Nick pointed out the lack of precedent for such moves, but there's also the potential (likelihood?) of a MLBPA grievance being filed if/when the Twins do cut Cave. This is an ownership group & FO that sold a relatively high draft pick to SD rather than just eat more of Phil Hughes contract when he was traded. If there's a decent possibility they end up on the hook for the full 800K I'd place strong odds on Cave surviving ST cuts.
  22. KirbyDome89
    That his tumble when the NL pitchers enter the mix isn't really that far. You knocked fWAR as a counting stat and then used the fWAR of NL pitchers who face near automatic outs 2-3 times per game to show that Berrios is held in higher regard than he maybe should be. If Toronto gets one great, 3 very good, and one ok season out of that deal I think they're happy. Sure, I agree Buxton is better equipped to rack up WAR in a shorter period of time but I don't see the merit in devaluing Berrios' ability to stay healthy when there isn't any history to suggest he won't be able to make those 30+ starts. Every player is "one injury away."
  23. KirbyDome89
    Are you really arguing that the current version is anywhere close to what we saw as a rookie?
  24. KirbyDome89
    Buxton at $17M AAB would still be a great deal for the Twins, and even that self imposed ceiling is a 50% raise over the 80M. Maybe it's arguing semantics but I don't have a problem with lowball being used to reference that number.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Can you point to operational moves the Twins have made, in the same vein as TB, that have turned out as favorably? Moving Pressly is probably the closest they've come to selling high. Are you thrilled about Alcala after this season? I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated on this site; TB's success isn't predicated on transactions, it's based on their ability to identify and develop the talent involved in them. Are you equally as high on the other big trade Oakland made that offseason? They finished in last place each of the next three seasons following those moves, while Donaldson put up more WAR in his first season with the Jays than all of the pieces Oakland received combined during their A's tenure.
×
×
  • Create New...