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
    I don't believe they were unsure of whether or not Burdi would be selected. Every write up I read, Twins specific or outside source, had Burdi as a lock to be taken early in the draft.
  2. KirbyDome89
    I would shed 0 tears over Kinley being cut loose and a 25 man spot opening up.
  3. KirbyDome89
    I think the fact they're in on Darvish is encouraging, but I also remember the old FO mentioning players they inquired about at trade deadlines. Wherever Darvish ends up, I think the offer MN puts on the table will truly determine how differently we can expect this new FO to operate.
  4. KirbyDome89
    The fact he wanted to be in the Midwest, to the point he was willing to give up a year of security, is interesting.
  5. KirbyDome89
    You could easily say the same thing about Rosario. He certainly was helped by a hot August/September last year. He has had his own issues with consistency and there are other obvious warts. Why is he an extension candidate but Buxton isn't?
  6. KirbyDome89
    You did, you stated that the front page wasn't the place for this article. There was no paraphrasing there. If normal operating procedures are suspended and an article isn't allowed on the front that is censorship. It doesn't matter whether your issue is the content or the timing of publication. Apparently we disagree on the definition of the word. "For the sake of full disclosure, I had this written last week prior to Sano's news. That being said, this should be viewed through a lens completely aside from that scenario." The request to view the baseball decision apart from the personal issues wasn't explicit? That's flat out untrue, and you know as much, as is evidenced by your attack of the idea of separating the issues regarding Sano. So you're not questioning why the article was written, only the entire premise from which it flows? There doesn't seem to be much distinction between questioning why a piece is written and questioning its' viewpoint entirely. You're absolutely entitled to your views on this article, where it belongs, and anything else pertaining to Sano. That said, your response to me was essentially splitting hairs and a fairly overt misrepresentation of the article pretext. I can confidently say we aren't going to find much common ground on this issue, so it's likely best we agree to disagree and move on.
  7. KirbyDome89
    Not at all inappropriate, but we'll disagree about the sensitivity, respect, and relevancy of the article. I can't claim total knowledge about publication either, but I will say I've seen the author's work fairly regularly on the front page, along with the other prominent writers, which leads me to believe the article was made for publication. I think it's safe to assume that a hierarchy of writers exists, and so I'm not sure that the process for blog publication is an effective measuring stick for articles such as this. You're asking for an article to be excluded from the from the front page because of its' content. How else should I interpret that, other than censorship? I'm aware that other posts touched on the allegations, but yours was the only one that questioned the validity of the article and called for its' relocation. I took issue with what I perceived as a purposeful redirection of the thread, especially after if was explicitly stated that this thread wasn't intended to go in that direction. If you say that wasn't the intention then I'll take your word for it. As to why the article was written, I believe that rationale has already been given.
  8. KirbyDome89
    The author provided you with an explanation that further expanded on the one he prefaced the comments section with. Neither of those comments were necessary, nor did they need any clarification, but he was kind enough to give both. If the idea of discussing Sano in any context apart from the mall incident infuriates you, there are at least 3 other threads devoted entirely to the allegations surrounding him. This one isn't the fourth. If you're asking that a recent article not be allowed to cycle through the front page, as all current articles do, then yes, you're asking for censorship.
  9. KirbyDome89
    Maybe if you can find a front-line starter that shares the same same levels of youth, talent, and team control. I wouldn't try to move a player like Sano for a discount rate.
  10. KirbyDome89
    Their biggest signing is a pitcher who is coming off major arm surgery and is unlikely to see the field until 2019. The wait and see approach is fine at this point, there are still lots of dominoes to fall, but I think even the most patient fans would have to admit this FO hasn't done much the last two offseasons to improve this team for either the long or short term. Like you said, there's still time, but right now the Twins are watching the pack pull away.
  11. KirbyDome89
    Personally I agree with Barkley. That said, I think one thing missing from the article is the role of a support system. If individuals directly involved in your life are also strong role models, it's easy to dismiss the idea of athletes filling that role; such is the case for me. However, I also understand not everybody is that fortunate. It isn't difficult for me to see how an athlete who excels at an activity, which possibly is one of the few bright spots in a person's life, can ascend to hero status.
  12. KirbyDome89
    Spot on. I'm not sure how or why those she told in confidence have come under fire but the timing of the decision to write and share the post was 100% hers.
  13. KirbyDome89
    IMO the initial interest has to come from a team source. I can buy the idea that agents might overplay just how interested other teams are in order to gain some leverage, but I can't imagine any of them outright fabricating a team's interest in a client. Remember, those agents have to work with all 30 MLB teams, beyond just a singular transaction. I doubt organizations would be too happy if their name was linked to misleading "leaks." I also have a hard time seeing an organization being receptive to working with an agent adept at that practice.
  14. KirbyDome89
    Where else, other than the Twins, are those media outlets getting the information about which players the team is "targeting?"
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. KirbyDome89
    Roster management that is necessitated by participation in the Rule 5. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...