Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,622

  • 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    "It's clear the club doesn't want to enter a long rebuilding phase." Is it?
  2. KirbyDome89
    I'd take almost any option over Simmons or someone of that ilk. I think theres a correlation vs. causation argument to be made in regard to Polanco's health/production post position swap, but I don't have a strong opinion on which side of 2B he plays. I agree, acquiring a legit SS should still be in play, especially given the lack of clarity in minors, but I think the most likely scenario is we see some retread like Simmons and we're sold the notion that they'll be out of the picture when Martin or possibly even Lewis show they're ready. Positional fit of prospects aside, this team wouldn't sit the worst offensive player in baseball to get Nick Gordon some run in a season that'd been over for months, hence my "anything but a washed up vet," stance.
  3. KirbyDome89
    I'm not making a pro TR argument here, nor am I suggesting the current FO hasn't contributed. As far as cherry picking is concerned, I'm not diving nearly as deep as you. Sano is a prime example for me. He's been a roller coaster the last 4ish seasons, with arguably more downs than ups. His ability to get on base has trended the wrong direction rather steadily for most of the Falvey/Levine tenure. There's plenty of Sano criticism, but little to none of it ties his regression/stagnation to the FO. I'm ok with that, as I prefer to separate this core group, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else, but I do see it as an example of the insulation the current FO has in regard to shouldering some shortcomings. I'm inclined to agree with your Rogers example, but a lot of praise, particularly with the core that has spanned both FOs (likely because they're largely responsible for recent success,) follows an "if A then B," template with A being any type of success (sustainable or otherwise) and B being FO intervention. The inverse doesn't seem to apply nearly as often, maybe that's just me.
  4. KirbyDome89
    Just a refresher; Addison Reed and Trevor Hildenberger were at or near the top of IPs for that bullpen in '18. The Twins moved one of their best relievers, a position of obvious need, and that player went on to be decidedly better with his new team almost immediately. In no world is that selling high. Sure, 1.5 years of control is worth more than .5 years, but if the team had no intention to bring him back as you suggest, that was a gross misevaluation of what they had. You can't "sell high," if you're severely undervaluing what you're moving. I'm using your logic here, i.e. Santana was a Rule V pick so moving him, even for minimal value, is the correct move as long as whatever they get in return trumps the incredibly low bar they cleared to acquire him. They could've moved him at any point and as long as whatever they received in return was more valuable than a mere Rule V pick, that would've been "selling high." FWIW Santana posted more WAR during his first season in NY than the Twins received from all four prospects combined during their entire MN tenure.
  5. KirbyDome89
    So we're giving the team credit for either not understanding what they had, or being unable to unlock what Pressly had? He has been markedly better (when healthy) the last 3+ seasons, how is that selling high? His performance post Twins is absolutely relevant because it's ultimately how this move will be judged. Do you view the Santana trade as a roaring success? He was a Rule V selection as well.
  6. KirbyDome89
    I'm not denying in any way that they've had success. I'm saying that emulating that success goes beyond surface level transactions, i.e. "making similar moves." Defending the Pressly trade as "something TB would do," is only relevant if TB is the team moving him. We know the Twins aren't on par operationally. That much has been clear the last 5+ seasons.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Sure, I'm not suggesting the current FO hasn't played a part, rather I think there's an element of cherry picking that tends to skew perception when assigning credit or blame. I agree with the bolded, I just feel the same way about a lot of the successes as well.
  8. KirbyDome89
    The Pressly becoming Rivera comparison does not remotely make sense. Precisely my point, and rather applicable to the Perkins/Alcala comp no? Saying something can happen regardless of how likely it is to occur isn't really an argument. Because those are 3 games out of the 165 that they played? Do you not believe Pressly on the Twins has an impact for both MN and Houston that season? Chanting "be the Rays," ad nauseam isn't a strategy. If it was as simple as making similar moves every team would do it. Can the trade work out? Sure, but what TB and Oak would do have no bearing on that.
  9. KirbyDome89
    The issue I have with ascribing any substantial amount of success these guys have had to the new FO is that in the case of reversion or failure, with this particular group and others, an equivalent amount of criticism rarely follows. I'm not arguing that is necessarily should. I tend to lean the other way and do believe that to a larger extent the cream does rise to the top
  10. KirbyDome89
    Who's to say Pressly can't become Mariano Rivera? I doubt you view that as a valid argument, but it's essentially the one you're making. Alcala hasn't started games since AA 3 years ago, and it went poorly, so we can probably close the book on him converting back to a SP and being effective in the majors. He was great for 20ish innings to close last season, which is encouraging, but the 40 or so innings prior to that were disappointing to say the least. Maybe he truly turned a corner or maybe it's recency bias and a pitching starved fanbase holding out hope. You're correct, there's no guarantee this version of Pressly is what the Twins would've/could've retained. I don't necessarily see that as a checkmark in the "pro," category when assessing the trade. We can't expect the Twins to help Pressly take that next step but development towards domination from Alcala is on the table? While TB and Oakland have found success with similar moves, MN hasn't. The offensive performance against NY in three games that postseason is a strawman when judging the Pressly trade.
  11. KirbyDome89
    C - Actual depth here. Hopefully Jeffers develops more offensively but this looks like a solid group. 1B - Rooker doesn't have a ML bat or glove, Sano is gone after this year, Garver and Donaldson are both FAs after the following season and I'd guess neither are too keen on switching positions. That leaves Kirilloff (coming off a wrist injury) and Larnach (who has never played 1B professionally or in collegiately.) 2B - Polanco is solid. Gordon hasn't shown he's even capable of handing a utility role. Miranda hasn't played a single inning for the Twins. If you're trading Arraez you don't also get to count him as depth. SS - Nobody. They literally don't have a SS for this season, plus there's a good chance Lewis and Martin don't fill in there either. LF - Touched on Rooker already. Cave has been abysmal for 2 seasons now. Larnach was a poor defender at the position in addition to his hitting struggles last season. Celestino wasn't ready. He's going to need to develop some sort of power if you're handing him a starting corner OF spot. CF - Buxton. They need a 4th OFer capable of playing CF. RF - Kepler is solid, the rest have been covered. DH - Can be used as overflow and/or a rotating door so I'm not going to worry about locking in a specific player. Maybe we need to define depth here. A body to plug in doesn't constitute a fail-safe in my view. There needs to be some level of skill floor involved before counting on players as actual depth.
  12. KirbyDome89
    He's replaceable/redundant for the Twins, but still so valuable that he'll net a top 100 prospect? If MN can actually get a good starting SS or a front of the rotation prospect for Arraez, it'd be hard to say no, but I just don't see a team that'd be willing to pay such a steep price. Martin and Lewis should be everyday players unless something goes drastically wrong. Miranda could be a better utility replacement, but there will be vacancies at 1B, 3B, and possibly LF depending on what happens with Larnach & Kepler. Trading Arraez this offseason to clear a hypothetical logjam seems premature.
  13. KirbyDome89
    The line of reasoning revolves around his value to the team vs. the value of a potential return. We agree, the Twins almost certainly aren't adding prospects, at least any of high pedigree, to a deal, and he's not likely to fetch a sizeable return on his own. I don't see any teams giving up a quality SS or a high tier pitching prospect for that type of package. The Twins can still pay for the type of proven big league pitching they're likely to get in an Arraez trade, and his value as a utility player is worth more to the team over the next 3+ seasons than a mid tier lotto ticket.
  14. KirbyDome89
    Arraez's offensive skillset is unique to all of baseball yet he's redundant on the Twins' roster? He isn't bringing back a front end starter by himself, which means the Twins are either adding other proven big league talent to the deal (if they're lucky) or more likely, they're throwing in a prospect or two. Teams willing to give up a 1-2 type starter with years of control left are almost certainly going to want prospects back. The Twins are sitting on $50M and we're talking about the major league team and/or the vaunted pipeline taking a hit. That's a problem. If he's part of a deal that brings in a true front end starter I can see the merit in moving on. If he's part of deal that only nets a mid rotation piece or another short term solution then what the f*** are the Twins doing? This FO wouldn't commit to adding talent when the price was only monetary, are we supposed to be confident they're willing to part with prospects to boot?
  15. KirbyDome89
    He's a journalist, by definition that job demands a certain level of objectivity that isn't comparable to that of a PR rep. There's almost no way the decision to suspend Rosenthal for 3 months had nothing to do with MLBN opting not to renew his contract a year later. We can quibble over Rosenthal's individual integrity but firing a journalist because you don't like what they're reporting on warrants criticism.
  16. KirbyDome89
    He was never asked to rely solely on FAs. He decided that "flexibility," was more important than stability, and the current mess is one entirely of his own making. We can't be at a point where year 6 is a throw away, with the positional talent, and it's excused because we're still waiting on something better than Randy Dobnak (or Ober if you want to count him at this point.) I don't think they're done with the pitching, honestly I'm not sure how they could be, but I'm not confident it'll be anything more than an Odo type addition with a veteran signing and another reclamation project or two sprinkled in. I guess they can still spend that $40M or whatever it is they're sitting on, but their best chance at adding impact talent with that $$ is gone.
  17. KirbyDome89
    All of whom were left handed, acquired on a leap year, and shared the same astrological sign right? How narrow does the scope need to be before all relevance is lost? I'd argue we're already there.
  18. KirbyDome89
    You're being ridiculed for protecting the pockets of billionaires who are grabbing an even more disproportionate amount of the pie, at the expense of their own fanbase and the long term health of the game. The varying financial realities across the league are widely understood.
  19. KirbyDome89
    This often seems to be left out of the "development year," argument. Investment, flexibility, ect are all positive spins on the same thing; indecisiveness. It's not all that defensible regardless of which side of the rebuild/retool debate you fall on. If you're putting all your eggs in the prospect basket and the expectation is that they'll flourish, you'd think the team would want to further invest while so much talent was cost controlled.
  20. KirbyDome89
    "If they are correct the long-term looks much better than it would had they signed a couple free agents." Again, none of these prospects are likely to fill the roll these FAs the Twins passed on would have. I'm not going to applaud potential cost savings while another year starts with an all too familiar hole(s) and a great opportunity squandered. You're incorrectly framing this as immediate vs. delayed. Developing players and utilizing other avenues to improve the team aren't mutually exclusive. There's a ton of risk and downside to the path the Twins appear to be on. Moderation is key, and right now the approach seems very unbalanced.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Exactly. It's setting up to be a multi year investment unless they win the lottery as far as the pitching prospects are concerned. If posters want to cling to that asterisk, fine, but I agree with you, the distinction is irrelevant when action, or lack thereof, to this point suggests the team is moving in a specific direction.
  22. KirbyDome89
    None of the FAs the Twins passed on would've filled the current, or likely future roll of any of the 3 examples you listed. It still makes absolutely no sense to opt out of an affordable 1-2 type arm even if they end up with a back end anchor, a 3-4 starter, and a solid reliever (the absolute best case scenario.)
  23. KirbyDome89
    I do, but I think assigning credit for players at or near the major league level sets up a sort of false dilemma where the current FO plays with house money so to speak. Conversely, I can see Sano being a more extreme version of the player he currently is. I also don't know if Buxton's health/luck changes much, and this FO also tinkered with his swing to the point where he spent an entire offseason away from coaching. They'd be interesting test cases.
  24. KirbyDome89
    Nature vs. Nurture, and a rather slippery slope? I don't if we can accurately, or fairly, separate the successes from the failures in the overlap group.
  25. KirbyDome89
    The fringes aren't really worth mentioning or arguing against. I view both '21 as well as the pitching issues as a culmination rather than a snapshot. Is it doomed because player X wasn't signed? No. Do I think it's highly unlikely they're able to field a staff capable of competing for a playoff spot at this point? Yes. The Twins weren't mathematically eliminated from playoff contention until mid September, but we knew the season was over by the end of May. I'd certainly take an Odo type, but barring a huge trade, it's a band aid on a broken arm. In fairness Detroit went all in during that run, and Dombrowski sold every asset he could to keep the window open. Maybe (hopefully) they don't reach those levels of spending again, we'll probably find out shortly. The Sox could be, and I said as much. I think the scope was narrowed to downplay the opportunity missed.
×
×
  • Create New...