Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,616

  • 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
    Those decisions have to be made because of the Rule V pick(s). That isn't a "weak link." You can agree or disagree with selections but pretending that managing a roster, 40 or 25 man, isn't part of participating in the draft is at best illogical.
  2. KirbyDome89
    Roster management that is necessitated by participation in the Rule 5. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  3. KirbyDome89
    There's a difference between holding an opinion based on available data, and trying to invalidate an opinion because the person holding it doesn't belong to a particular group. Hopefully it plays out in a way that doesn't hurt the Twins.
  4. KirbyDome89
    If we're defaulting to authority then we can never question any decision this team makes... You're right, it also involved Bard, another pitcher with a more successful track record than Kinley.
  5. KirbyDome89
    Agreed that the need is greater than a mediocre starter. If they're spending FA $ I'd rather see them go after Darvish but Lynn still provides an upgrade.
  6. KirbyDome89
    They're both flawed players. IMO if they're taking a chance on either I would much rather have Burdi and his injury history vs. a guy who has very little if any success above A+ in 5 minor league seasons. I hope they do have a much shorter leash with Kinley than they did with Haley but that also makes the decision more confusing. If the experiment lasts no longer than March then they almost certainly would've been better off using that roster spot on Burdi, and if they were still as down on him as they are now they easily could've tried to sneak him through waivers and no matter the outcome they would've been no worse off than they are at this moment. I don't understand how 5 years of minor league stats isn't enough to formulate an opinion on Kinley but 2 months in the Dominican Winter League might be.
  7. KirbyDome89
    If they have such little faith in him making the team the decision not to protect Burdi or Bard looks even worse. Rather than attributing success for moves unmade maybe it's you who should hold your comment and allow the rest to remark about what has actually been done to this point.
  8. KirbyDome89
    It has everything to do with the Rule V draft. Those players selected have to stay on the 25 man roster. The draft IS roster management. You read my post that said the Rule V draft could be used effectively right? Clogging the 25th spot with a pitcher who has limited minor league success and no options is hardly practical.
  9. KirbyDome89
    So after watching the Haley debacle last season the pushback against the decision to force another Rule V pick onto the 25 man is an invalid? You don't have to be a GM to see that the risk/uncertainty they lost was less than the risk/uncertainty the brought in. Add to that the loss of a roster spot and yeah, it isn't difficult to see why the move isn't particularly popular right now. There are plenty of minor league statistics available for all 3 players and some have even been posted in this thread. What's laughable is the argument from authority that seems to be thrown around in some of these threads. Drafting a player in the Rule V burns a 25 man spot. When that player has no business being on a MLB roster it's poor roster management.
  10. KirbyDome89
    "Handing out big contracts to names like Wade Davis or Greg Holland could end up preventing money being spent elsewhere." "a long term/high ceiling starter would make for one successful offseason." So are we Darvish or bust at this point? Unless they're committing $ to a front end starter they shouldn't have to penny pinch in the relief market, and even then the dumpster diving probably isn't warranted. Right now the only "building," they've done is adding a 41 year old reliever and burning a 25 man spot on a Rule V pick. Hopefully some significant moves are made in the near future.
  11. KirbyDome89
    The Twins are bringing in the same types of players they're exposing to the Rule V. If it's "pointless," to consider what they're giving up then isn't it "pointless," to participate in the Rule V altogether? I'm not a fan of losing Burdi, especially considering what they brought back, but I do think the Rule V can be used effectively. For that to be the case the player(s) you select should project better than what you've given up. I'm not certain that's the case here.
  12. KirbyDome89
    "Not the $." Exactly, I'm talking about the financial impact, not how long his leash is.
  13. KirbyDome89
    "very attainable," incentives suggests to me they're likely more usage/durability based. Unless he melts down to start the season Rodney will likely be able to hold on long enough in this bullpen to reach the necessary checkpoints.
  14. KirbyDome89
    I understand the volatility of relief pitching. It's one of the reasons I'm hoping the Twins eventually start using their bullpen as a feeder for young arms looking to join the starting rotation. That said, I've seen this signing called low risk, and I agree that it is. If Rodney implodes at 41 years old the $6M owed isn't going to sink the Twins. If we're shrugging off losing $6M this season why does a reliever going belly up in year 2 of a $15M deal become an issue? If the point is having no confidence in a reliever returning value to start a multi year deal then perhaps the issue is signing relief help at all and not so much the number of years committed.
  15. KirbyDome89
    As simply a bullpen addition the move is fine. Given how analytically driven this FO strives to be, I was hoping nontraditional bullpen use might be one of the first noticeable on field indicators. The emphasis placed on his career saves, his "closing experience," and the apparent desire for a "closer of the future," suggest more rigid bullpen roles.
  16. KirbyDome89
    Best description for a low risk/high reward gamble for 2019.
  17. KirbyDome89
    I think the name is carrying a lot of weight in this instance. Don't get me wrong, he's a clear upgrade over anything they have right now, but only having him for 2 years is tough. It depends on what they would have to give up for archer but 4 years at least gets them to the FA years of Buxton, Sano, ect. Cole for 2 years is easier to swallow if by some miracle they decide to spend $$ and get Darvish.
  18. KirbyDome89
    It sounds like people are conflating the dislike for the Kintzler move with a desire to "go all in," at the deadline. It's possible to agree that gutting the farm for a short term rental is a bad idea, and at the same time realize removing the top bullpen piece for a marginal prospect probably wasn't the best decision either.
  19. KirbyDome89
    I think a more appropriate example of a fanatical position is counting on a marginal prospect as long term improvement. If the Kintzler trade was one in a series of veterans being moved for prospects then sure, that would've made sense but if they were going to essentially stand pat then why give him up? It's hard to say that bringing in a "meh," prospect really improves the long term outlook for the team. It's not hard to say that losing an all star reliever certainly doesn't help the in season outlook. Management 101 goes beyond being a slave to numbers, context and circumstance are equally meaningful. The on field product was consistently outperforming statistical expectations. At some point the team is just better than expected, even if it happens to be by a wide margin. I'm not sure how that was reflected, if at all, by whatever formula was used to arrive at 5%.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Perhaps it was luck. I think that's a pretty clear cut situation where correlation doesn't equal causation. It directly contrasts with the premise of the article. The article was praising the new FO for the moves they've made. Some have pointed out that they may be getting credit for moves that weren't necessarily helpful. Given the limited number of moves/decisions this FO has made I'd say the deadline decisions do make a difference in how the FO is viewed. If you're looking for an argument about whether or not the Twins need front end rotation help I doubt you'll find it.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Why can't it be a case of making an ill advised move but getting a positive result? I was pushing for decisiveness at the deadline one way or another. Either sell big or bring in real help. Instead it was another "middle of the road," trade deadline for the Twins. I'm assuming we can agree that the team was better with Kintzler than some low level prospect. The way the game played out in October isn't particularly relevant to the argument being made against the decision making. The point was that the team was still in contention for that WC spot when the move was made. They had no idea if they would reach the WC game and if they did how much they would have to rely on the bullpen. If you're not making significant moves in one direction or another why trade away a late inning bullpen piece? Aren't you better off just keeping Kintzler at that point?
  22. KirbyDome89
    It isn't bringing in Darvish that has posters concerned. It's the fact they've done nothing to address the major issues in the rotation. The evaluation period is over and it's time for moves to start being made. I think that's all some want to see. Hopefully we have some clarity in the next few months. However, until some of those needs are addressed I don't thinks it's unfair to withhold applause for the new FO.
  23. KirbyDome89
    Definitely interesting to see their strategy during the draft and adding picks with the international money is a bonus that could look even better if the $ comes back. "But as far as winning in 2018 is concerned, Falvey and Levine haven't done much of anything." I think this is the larger issue though, and it doesn't apply to just 18' but the following seasons as well. I'm anxious to see how this offseason goes, but as of right now it's hard for me to say they're crushing it, even if the comparison is the previous FO.
  24. KirbyDome89
    No, and it's a fair point. I said as much in my OP, this could all be nothing and the Twins could easily clear it up. I do think it's odd that he would sign in early July and not have a physical until November. I also think it's weird not to announce he failed it during the summer if they knew the information would eventually be made public.
  25. KirbyDome89
    Yeah man, I said as much...."Obviously it's all conjecture at this point." Have you read a single post that claims anything the Twins have said is false? I haven't. What I've said is the timing of events seems funny. An unlikely MLB career, the "good relationship," with the team and the lack of noise from other clubs have all been used as evidence the Twins didn't do anything out of the ordinary. That all could be true. However, isn't that speculation as well? It's far from firm evidence. I don't see any definitive claims that the Twins are "playing dirty," but I do see questions about the circumstances, and I don't think it's wrong to ask them.
×
×
  • Create New...