Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,562

  • 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 Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    Do we really need to expect an Ortiz-esque second half of his career to justify paying him to stay? The most extreme example doesn't need to be the measuring stick.
  2. KirbyDome89
    I wouldn't even rank him as the worst single year, positional player signed by this FO. Logan Morrison anybody?
  3. KirbyDome89
    Idk if I'd say he's been jerked around. Bullpen innings (in fairness, struggles too) aren't uncommon early in starters careers. If the Twins staff wasn't a total dumpster fire this year, or they weren't starved for even mediocre internal options to start games, are they handing him that extension, or letting him rack up 40+ IP of pretty awful baseball this season? He pitched himself out of the rotation last year, albeit in a short/weird season, and he hasn't shown anything this year to suggest that wasn't the right move. Look, I'm not saying they need to give up on him, but we can reel it in a bit on Dobnak.
  4. KirbyDome89
    You can probably back up all the way to May 1st and his aggregate numbers aren't terrible. That said, I want nothing to do with him next year. I still see a guy who struggles with command, doesn't strike out enough hitters, and just seems to wilt in any sort of leverage situation. He isn't the historically awful pitcher we saw in April; I also doubt whoever pays him next season gets the 4 even-ish months we've seen.
  5. KirbyDome89
    I really don't understand the usage argument. The guy did almost the exact same thing in '19, coming off an entire summer of starting. Suddenly a handful of starts in ST and subsequent move to the bullpen derails him? Eh....color me skeptical. As far as injury goes, if we want to erase the two games in TX, even the Yankees game (though I'd argue he was already getting bludgeoned prior to the nail tearing) we can, but the overall picture isn't any prettier. I think the issue with Dobnak has been......Dobnak.
  6. KirbyDome89
    He started 10 games in the shortened '20 season and managed to loss his spot in the rotation/be optioned within those two months. Half of his appearances during his celebrated '19 stint were in relief, after he spent an entire summer starting in the minors, so I don't know why we're blaming his usage. What happened to him this year is that he has pitched poorly.
  7. KirbyDome89
    I wouldn't argue Cleveland is either, I think the Twins would've been a little better, but "tomayto, tomahto." Agreed, this is a culmination, not a recent development.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Probably a bit pessimistic. If their FA signings aren't literally league worst at their respective positions, (there are lots of ways to slice that) it wouldn't be shocking to see this team at least sitting where Toronto is right now. Maybe injuries, particularly Maeda, would've derailed them this half but given how bad the division is even remotely competent pitching coupled with the offense should've at least had them fighting for a WC spot.
  9. KirbyDome89
    I'd argue things went south because of poor moves with other factors compounding existing issues. As a general rule, I agree, even the best teams need to reset. As far as the Twins are concerned I think it came about prematurely.
  10. KirbyDome89
    In general, or in this specific instance?
  11. KirbyDome89
    Agreed, the fixation with "flexibility," or stop gaps is what got us here in the first place. If they're going to suck, I'd rather it be with with 1-2 solid rotation pieces that provide stability beyond just next season. I'd like to see the younger arms supplement that instead of a new cast of bargain bin pieces that have no value beyond '22.
  12. KirbyDome89
    Nope, nothing to do with Ortiz, rather I think it signals a longer term rebuild than the "reset," or whatever watered down term the team prefers to use. What history did I rewrite? Sure, I'm not banking on him playing 150 games, but it's a gamble I'm more than willing to make because the alternatives aren't nearly as appealing.
  13. KirbyDome89
    I think it's less about delusion and more about a desire to avoid what trading Buxton truly signals. We can acknowledge he has a problem with availability and at the same time admit that, at least recently, some of the more serious injuries have been of the more unfortunate nature. I don't expect toe fractures on a foul ball, or broken wrists via HBP to be recurring. The soft tissue and shoulder injuries, well, that another story. I'm all for the gamble too.
  14. KirbyDome89
    Same, I've always lumped them together. If we're at the point of cutting bait then keeping one and not the other doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the team.
  15. KirbyDome89
    I remember an offseason thread where you were mocked, openly, for that suggestion. My question is how independently do Falvey and Levine act? I honestly have no idea. I do have a hard time imagining Falvey doesn't have his fingerprints all over the issues you listed. If only Levine is cut loose I'd see it more as a symbolic firing, similar to something along the lines of Wes Johnson losing his job, than a sign that things will truly change.
  16. KirbyDome89
    If you're insistent on framing this argument only within the last offseason we'll disagree on scope. If you're willing to cede that FO decisions this season were in fact not made in a vacuum but you feel as though Shoemaker and Happ making up 40% of a rotation that was expected to compete for a WS was prudent, again, we'll disagree. You're not "disproving," something by failing to argue in good faith. Posters are simply choosing not to engage in an endless back forth where "rules for thee not for me," (proposed trades, signings, ect shot down by your own hypothetical outcomes) is the standard and criticism of the FO's lack of pitching continuity 5 years in is equated to being a keyboard warrior.
  17. KirbyDome89
    So they'd be 20ish games behind the Sox instead of 30ish at seasons end? They're 3 games under .500 in that stretch with Berrios starting for nearly the entirety of it; I don't see how that's cause for relief. Some better health and good breaks? The FO needs to get markedly better overnight at identifying FA arms or swing some massive trade(s) to fill out 4 rotation spots and half a bullpen but it's an overreaction to think the Twins aren't going to compete for the division in '22? Talk about exaggerating... Buxton not missing half a season helps but I haven't heard anybody arguing that this team isn't capable of scoring runs, and even his defense couldn't save this train wreck of a staff.
  18. KirbyDome89
    This is where I'm at, although I'd say I'm a little less neutral than you are at the moment. I don't think it's "entitled," (not your characterization) to criticize the total lack of impact pitching over a 5 year span, especially since it was the calling card of this FO, or at least that's how it was spun when they were brought in. I agree with @Vanimal46 though, ownership isn't exactly known for having a quick trigger, and whether or not we as fans are done with this FO next year, they aren't going anywhere. I think they bought themselves at least another 2 years, maybe (probably) more depending on how arms matriculate; rookie struggles aren't uncommon. I'm buckling in for a '22 season where we're sold hope and small positives are extrapolated in order to justify this season + the off season. I hope I'm wrong and we get the 2+ rotation arms you're calling for.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Is is reasonable to eschew other means to acquire pitching and rely on bottom tier FAs to fill out 40% of your rotation in year 5 when the expectation is to compete for a WS? This FO put themselves in that position. The disaster that is this season is a culmination of decisions that stretch back beyond just this year. They shouldn't get a pass because the FA crop, which they chose to rely on, wasn't great.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Part of the reason I couched the "might've been the best way to salvage the situation," in my OP. My confidence in their ability to spend the $$ wisely on pitching isn't exactly high, nor do I anticipate them spending if they see themselves as punting, despite whatever PR spin the fanbase is fed. Isn't avoiding replacement level players every team's goal? I don't think the Twins are unique with that approach. Berrios' departure created a massive hole, I'm skeptical the Twins are able/willing to fill it in completely.
  21. KirbyDome89
    I agree, it's a massive problem. I've never made the argument that the Twins have the financial safety net that competing teams do when it comes to spending in FA. That said, this organization made Joe Mauer one of the highest paid players in baseball over a decade ago, and he was absolutely worth it. The notion that the Twins can't pay Berrios what the market dictates rings hollow, at least for my ears. That reality set in a while ago for me. Again, my issue is how the move is being framed. They're going to need to spend at least half, if not more of that $30M AAV just to replace Berrios with an inferior pitcher in FA. He was a guy they could've retooled around, even if the next season or two wasn't competitive, that's a rotation staple for an organization that has almost zero stability on their staff. I don't that's a fair characterization of the points I've made. If one of the two prospects becomes a regular, above replacement level contributor in 2-3 years, that's a favorable outcome as far as prospect bust rate is concerned. If Martin is a utility IF/OF and Woods Richardson can slot in as the 4 man that's a great outcome relatively speaking. We wouldn't celebrate that swap. We're on the hope train, which I think has an equal if not greater emotional investment. It sounds like we agree about the should but not the could.
  22. KirbyDome89
    It's cost saving in the sense it's less taxing to develop and pay young front end talent than it is to trade for, or sign them. I'd define it slightly differently but I agree with the characterizations. Money saved today isn't available years down the road. I agree that the Twins need to develop their own pitching, but if the FO refuses to supplement prospects with FA or trades they're setting themselves up for failure. Doesn't being garbage in three years become sort of a self fulfilling prophecy at that point? Why not sign FAs with the hope that a young arms can stick? If the worst case scenario you laid out becomes a reality and the team sucks, paying FA arms won't matter because this team is looking at another half decade+ or irrelevancy.
  23. KirbyDome89
    I agree, they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's hard to look at the situation and call it a W when the odds are stacked against the Twins. We'd all go to FA in his place, but my moving him the Twins essentially told him they weren't interested in even attempting to pay him what he's worth. That's 100% on them. If they wanted him, they could have him. Sure, there is an opportunity cost for keeping him. My point was that I've seen a number of posters in support of moving him also play the "nobody knows what '22 will look like," card. It seems disingenuous. If we can all agree assembling a staff next year, even with Berrios, was going to be incredibly difficult, I think we can also agree that moving him, barring some miracle trade(s), all but guarantees this team is punting on next season. I think the "keep Berrios," camp is also dealing in probabilities when looking at the likelihood that the Twins add another pitcher of his caliber, whether that's via trade or development. I don't see a lot of the trade characterizations as sober, so we'll disagree there. My desire to keep Berrios wasn't about losing a few less games this year, it has way more to do with the fact he's the best pitcher this organization has had in a decade+, he's young and durable, there isn't any internal option that profiles to match his production, and we have a FO with a suspect track record when it comes to identifying and/or developing arms.
  24. KirbyDome89
    That type of "flexibility," has produced a laundry list of failed FA starters and has contributed in large part to the current state of the rotation. I understand the plan, and it's ideal from a cost savings perspective, but who in the organization profiles as a true 1 or 2 right now? Maybe the Twins get lucky, and someone absolutely maxes out. I'm not caping for the FO here but the odds that anybody in this organization is a legitimate ace in 2 years are low.
  25. KirbyDome89
    That wasn't aimed directly at you. I do agree with Hosken though, there's a sort of prospect lust that has shown up in these threads, to the point where the deal is being spun as a W for the Twins. Our farm system only had two top 100 prospects prior to the trade, with Balazovich squeaking in at 98. Prospect lists aren't the end all be all, but we knew the farm wasn't top heavy prior to the deal. It should be expected that a return for Berrios would slot in above most prospects already in the organization. If part of the justification for the trade was "2022 was a long shot even if Berrios was here," I don't understand the "who knows how 2022 will play out," sentiment I've seen from multiple posters. Sure, which is why I said it might've been the best way to salvage the situation, but the 0% chance to retain him is entirely of the Twins' own doing. Again, that's the overarching criticism.
×
×
  • Create New...