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
    Fair enough. The negative response to the Twins not beating an offer they could've or should've is certainly better than the backlash they would've received for not even making an offer.
  2. KirbyDome89
    This is an honest question. If they had moved on from Darvish weeks ago, why did they submit an offer just a few days back? If they had essentially bowed out, I'm guessing it was because they thought Darvish was getting that 6th year and/or the opt out, or their price limit had been exceeded, and they weren't willing to match. So why come back later and offer $100+ M / 5? They would've had to know at that point that their offer wasn't going to get it done, right? If it was a "nothing to lose, lets just take a shot," move then I guess in that sense they're right. Nobody is questioning the Twin's interest in Darvish, they were vocal about going after him. There is no doubt they were legitimately beaten in their pursuit either. The questions raised have to do with how serious they were about making an offer that would entice Darvish.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Including Castro in the bag was tongue in cheek. Agreed on the rotation and bullpen though.
  4. KirbyDome89
    Throw Castro in the bag too. Admittedly I'm jaded, he's adequate as a catcher, but if I have to read one more comment or article overhyping pitch framing....
  5. KirbyDome89
    The circle is complete.
  6. KirbyDome89
    What player, when he hits FA for the first time (or any time,) doesn't push for the longest and/or most lucrative contract he can get? I don't think Darvish wanting the security of a long term contract is in any way unique to him, or an indictment on how he views himself going forward. I don't see that as betting against himself. If the option is the bet you're talking about I would argue he's in fact gambling on himself. If he performs at or above market value he has the opportunity to strike another big deal.
  7. KirbyDome89
    I understand there is a cost for missed opportunity if years 3-5 may have been better than expected, but I think the risk of decline in those years weights heavily as well. The slope of the decline curve isn't necessarily constant. Lets say years 1 and 2 are great, then he walks and has another good season in year 3. There is nothing to suggest his performance can't drop precipitously, especially at a position as volatile as pitcher. I agree that the risk of negative performance hurting the team is the same in either scenario. Poor performance with an opt out guarantees the player stays and a contract without an option does the same. You're right, the risk is never static, but that works both ways. Really all we can work with is data that says performance dips as players age, when and how rapidly the dip occurs is anybody's guess. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "heads I win, tails you lose." If that player walks the team has received value beyond what they paid for. In the game of FA you can't ask for better. I wouldn't call that a loss. There is potential to lose out on future performance, but I think getting out from underneath the risk of decline, especially considering Darvish's will be in his late 30s, is at worst a fair trade off. From the player's perspective I would call it "we each win, but me a little more so."
  8. KirbyDome89
    The opt out doesn't negatively affect the Twins. It's fair to say that it's very unlikely the Twins are even mentioned in the running for pitchers like Darvish, let alone making formal offers, in either of the next few offseasons. With that being the case, why not just give him the opt out? If he walks, that's still 2 seasons of high level pitching they're never going to replace in FA. I can understand the hesitancy to go 6 years, but the opt out should have alleviated some of that pressure, not added to it. The "worst case scenario," I described was an attempt to view the contract through the lens of somebody who saw the option as a point of contention.
  9. KirbyDome89
    Just saw this....wow.... Worst case scenario is he exceeds expectations and returns greater value than expected for a couple years, then leaves. It doesn't put them in a situation any worse than the one they're in now; devoid of a front end starter, trying to either swing a big trade, sign another mid/back end rotation piece, or handing out 1 year deals to cobble a rotation together. I don't see much that they had to lose by giving him the option after year 2. IMO that quote from Levine sounds like he's passing the buck while avoiding the real issue.
  10. KirbyDome89
    I get that nobody really wanted to hand out that 6th year, I really do. That said, it's a down market where the big spenders (Boston, NY, LA) weren't competing for Darvish. The Twins have a desperate need for a top of the rotation starter, and $21 M annually plus incentives seems like a very agreeable price. It feels like missed opportunity. Heres to holding out hope for a trade.....
  11. KirbyDome89
    Vargas is younger, cheaper, and better at this point. Napoli doesn't even fill any real need on the team. I agree with a post I read earlier; the idea that Darvish's decision is somehow contingent on Napoli being part of the organization seems odd and highly unlikely. The interest in him last offseason was at least understandable from a FO perspective. This year it's head scratching. I get it that he's "their guy," but right now it seems like its the only reason, and IMO not a good one, for bringing Napoli in.
  12. KirbyDome89
    I'm with you, those characterizations get old. I always find it funny that weather seems to be such an impediment to the Twins drawing interest but the Tigers and Cubs have had no problem luring top players recently. It's almost as if players will go wherever the $$ is. Crazy right?
  13. KirbyDome89
    Even then it's a hard pass. I'm all for the recruiting, not so much the ABs he'll absorb....
  14. KirbyDome89
    I don't think anybody would rather see the owners pocketing $ rather than trying to improve the team. That said, as a Twins fan, I want the team to make smart decisions. If there was a need at 1B and Hosmer was asking for 8 years I doubt I'd be thrilled if MN pulled the trigger on that. I've been on the Darvish train all offseason, but even I cringe at a 7th year. I agree 100% with the article that players should should make demands, but I think it was a great point to also say those demands should be rooted in reality. If this was a case where owners were colluding to depress the market and players were actually being undervalued than the agents who have been vocal would have a legitimate gripe. Ted was right, there is an upper threshold. IMO it looks like the top end FAs have made demands that go beyond that threshold, and have refused to back down, and in doing so they're holding the entire market hostage.
  15. KirbyDome89
    That's true but do you see anybody in next year's SP FA class that would clearly be better than either Darvish or Arrieta? I still like Darvish better than Keuchel but in general any big FA pitcher they sign will likely be early 30s with the same type of questions as this year's group. Unless they can pull off something crazy like a Machado or Harper signing followed by a big trade for a starter, I don't see the advantage of waiting a year to spend on the same type(s) of pitchers.
  16. KirbyDome89
    That's a good point. Watching mound meetings certainly isn't entertaining, but is saving 5 minutes really worth potentially altering a competitive aspect of the game? IMO the time saved doesn't justify the potential impact.
  17. KirbyDome89
    I agree with most here; I hate the idea of limiting the number of pitchers available or setting a minimum number of batters a relief pitcher must face. At what point is MLB going to accept some responsibility in the length of games? I'm tired of seeing the burden being shifted entirely onto the players and I certainly don't want to see the game fundamentally changed as a result.
  18. KirbyDome89
    No question the Twins should be able to take advantage of a weaker division to pad their bid for the WC. That's a talking point that often goes unmentioned. I'm not sure how ripe the division is for the taking this season though. You're right, Cleveland hasn't done much this offseason. Swapping Alonso for Santana might be a slight downgrade, and losing Shaw didn't help either but IMO the only thing keeping the Indians from coasting to the Central title is health. If they're healthy that pitching staff is one of the best in baseball. Add to that a good bullpen and tons of positional talent and it's hard to see MN taking the division from them.
  19. KirbyDome89
    They put all their eggs into that prospect basket though. If the plan is for all the young talent to move up and open a window of contention (and it has) wouldn't it make sense to have talent to supplement them? Fortunately the prospects have largely worked out but now they've already burned cost controlled time and the Twins are still without enough pitching around that group to win a playoff game. Honestly, if the organization is staking their future to a core of young players, what do they have to lose by bringing in pitching help or other support before their arrival?
  20. KirbyDome89
    This ^^ For as much love as ESan gets here (he was incredible during the 1st half last year) I think his role in reaching the WC is still understated. The Twins would've been buried by the ASG without that crazy 1st half. I realize the offense came along nicely after the break, but given the current rotation outlook we're banking on Erv repeating that crazy career half just to stay within striking distance of a WC. Scary....
  21. KirbyDome89
    1. I certainly think the Twins have missed the opportunity to spend in the past, and at the same time I think they've spent when they should've been slashing. That said, I don't believe much of the criticism surrounding the Twin's frugality is lazy or particularly off base. 2. No, the Twins don't have a fat TV contract, but they've seen a MASSIVE increase in revenue since Target Field opened. A $130 million dollar payroll next to their name will look eye popping, but in reality it bumps them to about middle of the pack in terms of spending, which is where they should be. They've operated well below that almost since TF opened, and I'm in agreement with you, they weren't good enough to justify that payroll in 2011, but they need to spend now. 3. This is a quibble, but I wish the Twins would've been more proactive in adding long term pitching help starting in 16' and maybe even earlier. This team was built to sink or swim with the young core now in place. If the Pohlads were indeed willing to spend, it would've been nice to see the team start adding pieces to complement the arrival of the young position players, rather than wait until they've begun to establish themselves to get some help. I'm sure there would still be grumbling about a 5-6 year deal for a SP but at least the FA/extension years of Buxton, Sano, ect, couldn't be used as an excuse not to sign pitching help.
  22. KirbyDome89
    "A lot of the statistical side of framing has more to do with the guy in front of and the guy behind the catcher than it does the receiver himself." Perfect context. Stealing a strike here and there is certainly beneficial, as is having a rapport with your pitchers.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Barring a big signing and/or trade I think we can move No. 5 to the top of the list.
  24. KirbyDome89
    Those 05' voting results are indefensible. It's still hard to look at Johan's numbers vs. the field that season. Im not sure if he would've made the HOF even with 3 straight Cy Young awards, but I doubt he'd be below 5% of the vote.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Are we certain that replay has nothing to do with it? The number of replay occurrences might be down but that doesn't mean the time each one takes can't increase and ultimately affect game length. I'm fairly indifferent about the pitcher and hitter clocks. I don't think they'll greatly affect 99% of players. Not sure I'm on board with limiting player mound visits per inning. Maybe if they were limited to one per batter I'd be willing to cede my position. I get kind of annoyed that MLB seems to have no problem altering or adding rules to speed up the game, but when it comes to addressing their own involvement in slowing the pace, their willingness to change seems to fade.
×
×
  • Create New...