KirbyDome89
-
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
-
We only have to venture back 1 year to see the volatile production of single year signings, and we don't need to time travel at all to see the results of the continued use of that strategy.
-
Odorizzi and Maeda weren't developed by the Twins. Berrios for sure was a success, but who did he snatch that title from? Liriano maybe? That was 10 years ago. Santana was 20 years ago. We're not that far removed from the Twins teams in the mid 2010s that could barely field two ML caliber pitchers, and right now the outlook isn't exactly roses either. They've had some success with FA starters (very little with the current FO) but even those were very short lived.
-
Unfortunately the Twins should also be included in that group.
-
Twins Claim Trevor Megill, Outright Jake Cave
KirbyDome89 replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I don't understand the victory lap over a guy who nobody wants to see with the Twins at any point still taking up room on the 40 man... -
inb4 "payroll flexibility," "Wes Johnson tweak," "low risk"......yuck
-
Along with that extra year came another $20M+
-
They're interested to a point, and that point is usually an amount below market value or even what we as fans might view as a relatively "affordable." Offer details bear that out. Aside from public acknowledgement that they're interested in higher profile arms, the results have been similar to what we had become accustomed to. If you want to read something more nefarious into it I don't care. That isn't the point I made, or have continued to make.
-
So this regime hasn't been more public in their pursuit of high end arms only to yield the same results as the last? What are you trying to argue here....
-
Take it easy, I'm not "criminalizing," the FO. Am I misremembering how the Darvish and Wheeler attempts played out publicly?
-
I'd almost prefer the old radio silence at this point. The current regime loves to let it be known they're "in on," higher end targets but the results have been much of the same.
-
Twins Linked To Cy Young Winner Robbie Ray
KirbyDome89 replied to John Bonnes's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
That didn't last long... -
It's also a pretty significant step down from those first 3-4 names to the Pineda ect. A trade might've been their best shot at acquiring front end talent regardless but I doubt that price will be any easier to stomach.
-
I'm with you that judgement in retrospect is ok, and you're right, his performance and availability over the next few seasons is certainly relevant. This deal shouldn't be evaluated solely on the Twins position the day Buxton signs, but I do think current status should weigh heavily into the final verdict. If you feel it's a great move, as most of us do, I don't see much of a quibble. Maybe it's me, but like the overwhelming attitude seems to be that the deal is a win despite the fact something could go wrong.
-
Literally no reason not to like this deal for the Twins. They're paying a guy who legitimately could win an MVP the same amount they paid for Happ + Colome last year.
-
Agreed, but he was also a TR signing & extension.
-
If I can afford the new car at this moment, and I'm trading the old car in at the dealership, i.e. upgrading, then no, I'm not wasting money on the older vehicle when I know I won't recoup anything for it upon the trade. If the Twins wanted to upgrade, then they could've/should've just sought an upgrade. I mean end of the day it's not my money, so I don't really care about that aspect of the Cave situation, but the notion that he's just an insurance policy that enables the team to continue shopping pre and post lockout kinda flies in the face of the Twins seemingly endless commitment to the guy the last few years. I know you're defending the move and not the player here, and you're right, it's early, but they could've plucked a below average CFer who'll hit .200 out of the pile at any point in or out of season. I think they have to see something with Cave if they're willing to commit any amount of $$ to keep him.
-
Report: Rays, Wander Franco agree on 12-year extension
KirbyDome89 replied to wsnydes's topic in Other Baseball
I'm cackling thinking about the incoming mental gymnastics the "be the Rays," crowd is certain to unleash. -
Specific examples? No. I couldn't name a single player that signed a contract outside of arbitration and was cut, let alone one that subsequently filed a grievance. I didn't know 1 year contracts for arb eligible players weren't fully guaranteed either. He isn't uncuttable. I just feel like all signs point to him being on the active roster and he has some armor to help ensure that happens. I wouldn't say I'm freaking out. I do think it's poor use of a roster spot.
-
Eh, unique yes, irrelevant no. I do agree that getting attached to a specific number in regard to what we expect the Twins to save/spend doesn't make much sense.
-
That's my understanding as well, however I do believe that @Otto von Ballpark linked this site a few days ago which further hammers home the notion that Cave is here to stay. The grievance would be over Cave's ST performance vs. his peers; it would have nothing to do with his '20 or '21 seasons. A team that's supposed to win by building from within, i.e. drafting and developing sold a 2nd round pick for $6M. To me that's a pretty clear indication of where priorities lie. Hughes and Reed each shared a long leash; I view Cave's situation as granting him one longer than I'd prefer as well. I don't doubt that if he's as atrocious as he was last season MN will move on, the quibble is over the opportunity he'll have to prove it one way or another.
-
Nick pointed out the lack of precedent for such moves, but there's also the potential (likelihood?) of a MLBPA grievance being filed if/when the Twins do cut Cave. This is an ownership group & FO that sold a relatively high draft pick to SD rather than just eat more of Phil Hughes contract when he was traded. If there's a decent possibility they end up on the hook for the full 800K I'd place strong odds on Cave surviving ST cuts.
-
Sure, priorities certainly can change. We can assume the report wasn't true, or all that accurate, Berrios and his agent could've been making crazy demands, received the trade they wanted and obtained new info on how the market valued Jose upon being traded, then finally readjusted/settled on a pretty good deal for both player and team. Alternatively, the Twins might never have been willing to approach Berrios with what he thought was fair value and Toronto was willing to meet that compensation number. I'm just siding with Occam's razor here.
-
That his tumble when the NL pitchers enter the mix isn't really that far. You knocked fWAR as a counting stat and then used the fWAR of NL pitchers who face near automatic outs 2-3 times per game to show that Berrios is held in higher regard than he maybe should be. If Toronto gets one great, 3 very good, and one ok season out of that deal I think they're happy. Sure, I agree Buxton is better equipped to rack up WAR in a shorter period of time but I don't see the merit in devaluing Berrios' ability to stay healthy when there isn't any history to suggest he won't be able to make those 30+ starts. Every player is "one injury away."
-
Are you really arguing that the current version is anywhere close to what we saw as a rookie?
- 50 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- jose berrios
- byron buxton
- (and 1 more)
-
Buxton at $17M AAB would still be a great deal for the Twins, and even that self imposed ceiling is a 50% raise over the 80M. Maybe it's arguing semantics but I don't have a problem with lowball being used to reference that number.
