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
    NY went out an signed Ottavino and Britton this offseason. The Twins claimed Blake Parker off waivers. The Yankees have one of the best set of late inning arms in baseball (Chapman, Britton, Ottavino) while MN has Rodgers and some other guys. To say NY was/is as desperate for impact arms isn't remotely true. I'm so tired of hearing "team X didn't get this player so the Twins weren't going to either," or "if team Y showed interest it wasn't somebody MN should've targeted." The Twins opted to ignore adding bullpen arms over the offseason. The internal shuttle isn't the answer and they've had to move outside of that to make waiver claims on journeymen arms. There's really no excuse for this team to be in the situation they're in now. If the idea was to "see what they had," before adding then the FO had to know they'd pay a premium at the deadline. Period. If there was never any intention to add the kind of arms this bullpen needs, they should've signed 2 lower tier pitchers during the offseason and potentially saved prospects and/or added a few games in the standings, especially in July.
  2. KirbyDome89
    I'm sure they were higher than MN would've liked, but that's the situation they put themselves in. Again, they had to know prices were going to be higher at the deadline.
  3. KirbyDome89
    They were available. The FO chose to wait until the deadline to address the bullpen. They had to know they were bound to pay more.
  4. KirbyDome89
    So maybe don't put all your eggs in the trade deadline basket then?
  5. KirbyDome89
    Acceptable as in the back end is better now? Yes. Acceptable as in they acquired at least one impact arm, or did enough to feel decent about the pen making a playoff push? No.
  6. KirbyDome89
    Overall it's an underwhelming deadline for the Twins. "Better than nothing," wasn't exactly the bar I was hoping to clear. The bullpen improved, but that needed to come from the top down, not the bottom up. 3 weeks ago a Romo + Dyson deadline wouldn't have been met with much fanfare. The near hysteria over potentially only acquiring Romo shouldn't mean any move the FO made todays pushes the deadline into acceptable territory.
  7. KirbyDome89
    I don't think it's likely to happen either, but it's what they've needed since the offseason. Lowering the bar on expectations is one thing; giving the FO a pass on failing to adequately address the bullpen after doing essentially nothing through the winter and first half of the season is something entirely different. I'm resigned to the 1st, but can't do the 2nd.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Acceptable is different than "like." They can rearrange low leverage guys all they want, and probably improve the pen to an extent, but that's shuffling deck chairs. They need arms (multiple) that are on par with Rodgers, or a starter + impact bullpen arm, if they're serious about solidifying the staff for a playoff run. There's still time, but I also don't see the need to celebrate the Romo addition as moving the needle in any significant way.
  9. KirbyDome89
    Express "interest," and pat themselves on the back for offering a below market value deal. Add back end pieces and reap praise for "savy," additions that can supposedly be turned into elite performers. Sell the financial flexibility, sustainability "wait and see," company line. Rinse, wash, repeat....
  10. KirbyDome89
    "He's clearly better than our worst reliever." That's why the move isn't popular. The goal is to improve the bullpen. The easiest way to do that is to add to the top and push everybody down, not vice versa. Sure, they have a few more days to add actual impact arms, but that doesn't mean anybody needs to like the Romo addition. If nothing else the deadline continues to creep closer and the Twins have yet to make a significant move.
  11. KirbyDome89
    In fairness a large portion of that "good," sample size came before his TJ surgery. We were debating whether to extend Kyle Gibson in the midst of his run at this time last year too. It isn't a perfect comp, Lynn has the better performance track record but Gibson certainly wins when it comes durability. If Lynn was a FA in the offseason it'd be a different story. This team needs pitchers, especially starters for next season. Personally I'd rather see the Twins go after a higher tier/more reliable arm than buy high on Lynn with the hopes he turns into a bargain.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I absolutely thought it was after reading the headline.
  13. KirbyDome89
    Meh, as a back end starter he isn't high on the list of concerns. I wasn't expecting a ton from him this season either. I'd certainly rather have Pineda than Tommy Milone or Bartolo Colon but we're setting the bar pretty low there...
  14. KirbyDome89
    I can't give an exact number but I'd guess a fair amount. I can't imagine it's much different than something like drinking, where some start in high school and others wait until they're out of the house/adults. Buxton isn't responsible for random teenagers. I've always pushed back against the notion that baseball players are responsible for those watching, and I probably always will. Those kids have parents or other role models in their lives. It isn't Buxton's duty to parent strangers through a tv screen. He isn't perpetuating any idea. He's not endorsing or condemning the use of tobacco. He's making a personal choice, and it's one he should be allowed to make. I don't chew, and I don't have particularly strong feelings about it being banned either. If MLB decides they don't want their employees doing it, then they have the right to implement that rule, but until then players shouldn't be shamed for opting to use a substance that's within their rights.
  15. KirbyDome89
    No no no...My point was slightly tongue in cheek but I meant teams stand to earn more from healthy repeat customers over time rather than those suffering from heart disease. Individuals with chronic health aliments aren't frequenting events at the same rate as those without them, and they certainly aren't matching lifespans either. We're speaking in extreme generalities here but a long term outlook is rosier if teams aren't feeding (literally) into the #1 affliction the US suffers from. I think I've made the exact opposite contention. We're talking about guys who beat the hell out of their bodies over a short period of time. Even if it's 5X the normal usage rate, that still a small percentage of total players. We're speculating but I'd wager that MLB spends much more on chronic physical aliments than they do on cancer linked directly to chewing. Sure, they might save a little $, but as I said before there are more impactful ways of saving $ and protecting the product/revenue that would be just as easy to implement. I think the fact that they aren't addressed says a lot about the motivation behind banning tobacco.
  16. KirbyDome89
    Short term yes, but they also stand to make a lot more long term by holding onto customers. That's the inconsistency. I think that player health could certainly be a factor, I just don't buy the idea it's near the top of the list for banning chew. Ha, in one sitting, sure. It doesn't take too many of them over time to start doing some damage though.
  17. KirbyDome89
    Honestly I'd rather they not get rid of any of it, and adults were allowed to make their own decisions. Buxton is a grown man, I think it's safe to assume he knows the risks associated with chewing at this point. He's no longer an impressionable youngster. I agree that there always has to be a first domino to fall, but like I said before, if MLB is actually serious about the health of those involved there are larger dominoes to topple that would be just as easy as banning chew. That leads me to believe this is more about PR, i.e. "think of the children," rather than actual concern.
  18. KirbyDome89
    I agree with Nick that holding up one side as "worse," to exonerate the other is a weak argument, but Aggies is right about the hypocrisy. Heart disease affects exponentially more people than cancer due to smokeless tobacco, yet ballparks are more than willing to push out 3000 calorie platters of artery clogging garbage to their fanbase. That absolutely has a direct financial impact. IMO banning chewing tobacco is purely PR. They can spin it as a concern for health, but that comes off as entirely hypocritical when you consider what they're selling to the fanbase that kicks in tax money to pay for the stadium, generates concession/ticket revenue, and purchases tv viewing packages.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Meh maybe we're reading into the thread differently. I see most of the concern directed at moving forward rather than performance in April or May. IMO the last 2 weeks have been a wake up call although I'd argue that some of the warning signs were present even when things were rolling at the beginning of the season. I agree, the bullpen held together nicely the first couple months, but I also think the numbers are a bit deceiving. Bank the performance thus far, just don't expect those numbers to continue or improve.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Neither are saves or holds. It's hard to blow huge leads even for the worst bullpens. The bullpen has thrown the 2nd fewest innings in baseball thanks to a slow schedule to start the season and some deep games by the starting staff. Until recently they hadn't been taxed at all. With Perez looking like the guy we thought he was, Gibson once again struggling to find consistency, and Pineda being a 5ish inning guy, the warts that were largely ignored have become much more apparent.
  21. KirbyDome89
    I'm starting to allow myself to get my hopes up for this team. That's scary. The last time I felt this good about a Twins squad I was a freshman in college. Ahhh the good old days.....
  22. KirbyDome89
    After another month+ of this I might be right there with you. I've never said he's been lucky, or that he hasn't made adjustments. Perez started the year in the pen and the results weren't great. Since moving to the rotation he's been lights out in 5 starts, 4 of which have come against Baltimore and Toronto. I'm happy with what he's been so far, but 40 IPs, the bulk of which are against bad lineups, is way too little to feel comfortable penciling him in as a solid arm for the rest of the season.
  23. KirbyDome89
    I haven't knocked the production.
  24. KirbyDome89
    It doesn't mean nothing, but it certainly isn't going to change my mind about the 200+ innings he posted the previous two seasons. I still put more stock in those results rather than 8 innings in a single game during April. Like I said, enjoy the early production; the Twins don't have to give it back, but I'm nowhere near proclaiming Perez is a changed man.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Meh, I'll definitely take the production but facing Baltimore and Toronto 3/4 games isn't enough to change what I thought and continue to think of the signing.
×
×
  • Create New...