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
    The question was about his feelings regarding Rodney et al leaving. In Erv's mind they still had a chance for the division, so of course he's upset that they sold. Blaming the FO for falling 10 games under .500 is very different than blaming them for selling when you believe there's still a chance. That nuance is being ignored by hardline stances, which I'm not saying you're taking here. I don't think it's a great look for Erv to say those things, but I don't mind him being candid. I can understand not liking the comments, but calling for his release is going too far IMO.
  2. KirbyDome89
    I'm almost certain that Erv would acknowledge that poor play and an inability to stay on the field got the team to the point of being sellers. His finger injury played a part, but it's hard to "blame," him for that. That's why I said it has to do with the timing of the sale. I'm sure a lot of players in that clubhouse had the glut of games with Cleveland circled. In their mind they still had a chance, albeit slim, to catch the Indians. That was how I interpreted his comments; not as shrugging off blame for the struggles through the end of July, but rather frustration with selling before they believed they were dead in the water.
  3. KirbyDome89
    That seems a little heavy handed. He signed a contract to provide services, and the Twins still deem those services worthwhile. When they don't pick up his option it'll be a business decision, and that's fine, but in the meantime he doesn't owe this organization anything, gratuity included.
  4. KirbyDome89
    I think we can appreciate a moment of honesty even if we don't agree with the sentiment. I also think if we're going after Erv based on only the context of this game we're missing his point entirely. As a fan I agreed with the sale. If I'm a player near the end of time on a MLB roster and I've watched this FO sell during a season a WC berth was achieved and then again before a glut of games with the team I'm chasing then yeah, I'm probably not happy. I don't think he's really passing the buck here. I didn't read his comments as blaming the FO or new teammates for his performance, or the Twin's record to date. I read them as him venting frustration over the timing of the sale.
  5. KirbyDome89
    We agree that the odds of him being taken in the Rule V aren't as high as him being claimed after a DFA. I just think there isn't much of a gap there. If you're going to have to protect him either way it really comes down to the risk you'll have to DFA him to make room vs. the risk he never comes back. I'd rather see him for 2 months and try to hold on than lose him over the winter and potentially never see him again. It isn't an ideal situation either way.
  6. KirbyDome89
    His chance of going in the draft probably isn't quite as high but he's almost certainly gone either way. He has to stay on the active roster, but there are plenty of bad teams with rosters that can burn a bullpen spot on him if they believe they stole something. The Twins rostered J.R. Graham; I'm sure another team can find room for a former top 5 pick. In this scenario they at least get a look at him for 2 months before making the decision whether or not to risk losing him.
  7. KirbyDome89
    He would've been eligible for the Rule V draft if he wasn't on the 40 man roster correct? In essence it's a tryout to determine whether he's worth protecting. There isn't much downside here, aside from him potentially not getting enough innings, which shouldn't be a problem over the next two months. There's no reason for the Twins not to keep him on the 40 man into the winter, and if they're absolutely unimpressed they can DFA him and they're no worse off than they would've been exposing him to the draft.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Are any of those guys better than the players they've replaced? I think that was Erv's point. I don't have an issue with the FO selling or player(s) voicing their displeasure with that direction. I'd guess his frustration has as much to do with last season's deadline as it does with this season's trades.
  9. KirbyDome89
    I'm reading this as a 40 man tryout. Hopefully he gets a fair chance to stick with the team and show whether he needs to be protected.
  10. KirbyDome89
    Exactly, I haven't seen anybody say they expected the additions to make the team worse. They all came with concerns though, which IMO played a huge role in why they were available. Those question marks are often ignored when the moves are praised but then they resurface and they're used to laude the short term aspect of the deals. It's hard for me to applaud the Twins for scooping up players destined for short term deals in what was left of a down FA market, and then, after a bulk of the concerns over the signings come to fruition, commend them for only making short term commitments. tl;dr The Twins should've been better this season. Regression by the core played the largest role, but the FO gambled on low risk/low reward FAs and they were burned. That isn't praise worthy IMO. As a side note, it worries me that they're in a position where they have more holes to fill via FA, trade, or internal options this coming offseason than the last. I know we each voiced concern about the success rate of reshuffling the deck season after season following short term commitments. Here's hoping round 2 goes a little more smoothly.
  11. KirbyDome89
    Late innings might be watchable now. Enjoy the FRE Oakland; I sure didn't.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I'd let him bet on himself, then bite the bullet and sign him back as a FA if that's where it ends up. Spend some of that "financial flexibility," to audition Gibson for another year before committing to him on a long term deal.
  13. KirbyDome89
    If it isn't part of their "vision," then somebody must have a gun to their head because they've done an awful lot of it over the last two seasons.
  14. KirbyDome89
    I don't think anybody expected a complete 180 by this point, but I believe incremental improvement both on and off the field as well as a departure from old "habits," was a realistic expectation for this group. I think a large source of the frustration is the fact that we haven't seen much of either of those goals.
  15. KirbyDome89
    Plenty of posts across different threads
  16. KirbyDome89
    All these terms: "preserve long-term flexibility, pursue value, follow your limits," are a kind way of saying aim low. It's putting a positive spin on shopping in the bargain aisle. That 10-20 number is relative to the talent only in that FA class, and by all accounts it wasn't a particularly good one, which explains the slow winter. I appreciate your fascination with how long I've followed the Twins but feel free to chill on that subject. Yeah, I understand that they aren't Bautista level bad, that's never been the case I've made. If we're just going to hold Lynn and Morrison up against some of the worst signings in team history and clap because they weren't scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel then what are really doing? The fact that neither Lynn nor Morrison was Rondell White doesn't mean the signings weren't lower level. I never said they'd be at home, or that no other team showed any interest whatsoever. Stop with that. Sure, maybe the Twins did slightly overpay to get these guys on one year deals, but in your rush to pat this FO on the back for those signings you're completely ignoring why those players are able to be signed to those deals in the first place.
  17. KirbyDome89
    No, in fact I would've been on board with a better offer than what the Cubs gave him. I realize long term commitments are risky ect. but at some you have the take the plunge and it didn't look like the Twins were going to get an ace caliber pitcher anywhere else. Like I said, 5/100M would've been a steal, but if you really want player X sometimes you just have to pay sticker. This is where we disagree, I don't think they did either. Darvish was expected to sign for 6/150+M before FA began. I don't think they were ever truly on board with bringing him in, hence the low offer, and I don't think they every really backed out either because they did actually make an offer.
  18. KirbyDome89
    That's great for you but it's irrelevant to the conversation. Reality is that the Twins made an offer, albeit low, and weren't successful. We shouldn't be praising them for avoiding an apparent mistake that they obviously had some intention to make.
  19. KirbyDome89
    They weren't huh? I guess I missed where they had interest around the league and the Twins were able to convince them to forego better deals to sign with them for 1 year and 1 year + a team option. "The market fell out on," i.e. bargain bin. They retained that illustrious payroll flexibility because nobody was willing to hand either of those guys a long term deal.
  20. KirbyDome89
    You're missing the point. We agree that 5/100isM would've been a steal. We agree that the market was depressed. IMO that's all the more reason to question the desire to spend the $$ it takes to bring back elite talent. If they're making offers that clearly aren't likely to get a deal done in a depressed market, where as you said, the big FA players are sitting out, why should we believe they'll pay sticker price in 19'? Of course they wouldn't have predicted Darvish would have the season he has. The "foresee," part was tongue in cheek. What that means is they shouldn't be given credit for "avoiding signing Darvish," because they submitted a lowball bid, and they shouldn't in turn be praised for that low offer.
  21. KirbyDome89
    The Darvish situation was a black eye all around for the FO. They were "in," on him to the tune of $100isM over 5 years, which was an offer that was never likely to get a deal done. Darvish eventually signed a deal that was still considerably under expected market value. If he truly was a priority and the organization was actually willing to make a serious offer heading into FA then I have a hard time believing they couldn't have beaten the Cub's offer. That quickly morphed into the FO being wise not to sign him. If they could foresee his struggles this season then why bother with the 5 year offer + media hype in the first place? They dug Lynn and Morrison out of the bargain bin, which isn't anything new for this organization. They'll be players in FA ,if for no reason other than they won't be able to fill all their roster holes internally. The goal should be to aim higher than "value signings." IMO there isn't much to suggest that'll happen.
  22. KirbyDome89
    I guess that depends on what your definition of "give up," is. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here because I'm still holding out hope for both of them, but I don't see a readjustment of expectations as giving up.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Watching the Dodgers game right now... Dozier having a nice debut Great game I might just stick to this the rest of the season
  24. KirbyDome89
    My man Jorge. He's been silently steady since returning.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Rodney knows he doesn't have to bounce his changeup 5 feet in front of the plate right?
×
×
  • Create New...