Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,562

  • 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 Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by KirbyDome89

  1. KirbyDome89
    Where else, other than the Twins, are those media outlets getting the information about which players the team is "targeting?"
  2. KirbyDome89
    Agreed, they're past the point of "wait and see." The time for that was when they were losing 90+ games a season. I was as vocal as anybody in regards to shedding veterans and seeing what they had in young arms/bats, but that's a "luxury," a bad team can afford. A team that has real playoff aspirations shouldn't be banking on question marks and unproven players filling out a bullpen or rotation. One or the other in a few spots is acceptable but a rotation and bullpen that are revolving doors don't instill much confidence in a serious playoff run, The new FO seems quicker in some cases to remedy ineffectiveness so I'm ok at this point with younger arms forcing their way into playing time. This core only has a few seasons left before FA. I'd rather not watch the pitching staff burn another one.
  3. KirbyDome89
    Agreed that Kinley didn't cost the Twins Burdi or Bard. The decision to leave them unprotected was made before Kinely was even an option. That said I do think the moves are more related than some are acknowledging. Burdi was the highest upside, and could've been a DL stash so it's clearly the most head scratching and really not a 40 man issue, at least to start the season. It really boils down to Bard and Kinley. Yes, they had, and still have room on the 40 man for each of them, but we're all banking on them using that space for another FA right? If they had protected Bard he likely was the first one off the 40 man. I'm guessing the FO thought they had a better shot of retaining him in the Rule V rather than expose him to waivers if they sign a FA and have to remove Bard from the 40 man. Personally I would've rather they kept both Bard and Burdi and left Kinley alone. Options are nice. I think the 40 man decisions prior to draft were made with FA and a draft selection in mind. It may not have been Kinley explicitly, but the FO was comfortable giving those 40 man spots to somebody other than Bard so to me the relation runs deeper than simply transactions during the same event.
  4. KirbyDome89
    If the Twins went into the draft and only had their eyes on a player or two and each happened to be selected before the Twins had a chance to pick it would make sense. Of course you're risking losing the player you leave unprotected in that scenario as well. That isn't a defense of the Rule V selection (Kinley) and it likely isn't what played out, but theoretically if the player they exposed was considered the best player left I can see the logic in selecting that individual.
  5. 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.
  6. KirbyDome89
    Roster management that is necessitated by participation in the Rule 5. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. KirbyDome89
    "Not the $." Exactly, I'm talking about the financial impact, not how long his leash is.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. KirbyDome89
    Best description for a low risk/high reward gamble for 2019.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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%.
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...