Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

KirbyDome89

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. KirbyDome89
    Nope, nothing to do with Ortiz, rather I think it signals a longer term rebuild than the "reset," or whatever watered down term the team prefers to use. What history did I rewrite? Sure, I'm not banking on him playing 150 games, but it's a gamble I'm more than willing to make because the alternatives aren't nearly as appealing.
  2. KirbyDome89
    It makes so much sense I'm not sure it'll happen. Seriously though, there's no reason for any of the 4 mentioned not to be with the Twins at this point. Better late than never I guess...
  3. KirbyDome89
    Lots of conflicting statements here.... What's sustainable about continuing to give innings to guys with no future on this team while pitchers that will likely have to be relied on next season sit at AA and AAA? Is John Gant ever going to start for a contending team? Handing him the ball, again, while guys like Balazovic and Ryan are still in in the minors is asinine at this point. The push to get those young arms up here is to build for the future, it's not "just noise." Whether you agree or not about WS contention next season doesn't matter, the point is that investing innings in roster fodder while pitchers that can actually help in the coming years are inching closer to their innings limits in the minors makes absolutely no sense. Decisions made today affect the future, that should be obvious.
  4. KirbyDome89
    I think it's less about delusion and more about a desire to avoid what trading Buxton truly signals. We can acknowledge he has a problem with availability and at the same time admit that, at least recently, some of the more serious injuries have been of the more unfortunate nature. I don't expect toe fractures on a foul ball, or broken wrists via HBP to be recurring. The soft tissue and shoulder injuries, well, that another story. I'm all for the gamble too.
  5. KirbyDome89
    Patience and "building a sustainable model," was the sales pitch 5 years ago. A large portion of the failure this season, and most of the gloomy outlook for next year can be attributed to the latter never materializing. Past performance is absolutely relevant if what you're endorsing is punting on next season while simultaneously preaching more patience. Regardless, the post you quoted made clear that it's foolish to double down on mistakes. Do we really need to watch John Gant start in late August? I don't see the quibble with getting young arms some innings at this point in the season, whether or not you believe the team can/should try to compete next year.
  6. KirbyDome89
    What's sustainable about the FO's approach to pitching? This thread exists because the annual short term gambles all went belly up and the top end of the rotation & bullpen finally weren't good/healthy enough to overcome it. If their FA signings weren't historically awful the offense likely has this team fighting for a wild card spot with Cruz and Berrios still on the roster; which means the only organizational prospect off the active roster, with any real chance to contribute this year or probably next would've been Balazovic. If their approach the last 5 years truly was sustainable we would've seen a much better track record in FA, or at the very least a bullpen arm or two developed.
  7. KirbyDome89
    I don't think I've ever seen a team be so apathetic about a tie game in the 9th. I almost feel bad for Colome, he just can't handle any sort of leverage.
  8. KirbyDome89
    Sure, but I'd include injuries in the performance projections I set aside. 130 is probably the minimum, ideally it'd be 150ish with the 4 inning starts becoming 5, the 5 inning starts becoming a quality 6, ect. A full season with half of his starts sub 5 inning puts a lot of pressure on a bullpen and rotation.
  9. KirbyDome89
    I don't think he's outside of the rotation next season either, the question is how much of Ober are they locking in? Can he get close to 150 IPs or are they going to have to limit his innings per outing and/or shut him down at some point?
  10. KirbyDome89
    I'd add Ober to that stretch list as well. I understand the warm feelings from a pitching starved fan base, but I still view him as a fringe back end guy that can go either way at any time. Projected performance aside, this season might be the first time in 5 years that he's going to approach 100 IP. Even if he is the back end starter we hope, how much usage can the Twins realistically expect from him next season?
  11. KirbyDome89
    1. Money not spent next year isn't carried over into subsequent years 2. Not investing $$ into being a better team because the outlook isn't ideal is a good way to ensure you're in a perpetual state of poor to mediocre performance.
  12. KirbyDome89
    Huh?
  13. KirbyDome89
    That isn't being argued. The question is whether turning good/great defensive plays and base hits into routine outs is good for a spectator sport. Do you share jkcarew's sentiment that this version of baseball will correct itself?
  14. KirbyDome89
    Add Simmons to that list too.
  15. KirbyDome89
    If the Twins are making a claim then the arms aren't free right? If there are internal options that could get a look, why not give them the first shot, particularly when the organization has already invested money and time developing them? When the Twins reach TBs level of internal scouting maybe they'll get the benefit of the doubt in these situations but the FOs recent track record of identifying in house talent isn't all that great.
  16. KirbyDome89
    Same, I've always lumped them together. If we're at the point of cutting bait then keeping one and not the other doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the team.
  17. KirbyDome89
    I remember an offseason thread where you were mocked, openly, for that suggestion. My question is how independently do Falvey and Levine act? I honestly have no idea. I do have a hard time imagining Falvey doesn't have his fingerprints all over the issues you listed. If only Levine is cut loose I'd see it more as a symbolic firing, similar to something along the lines of Wes Johnson losing his job, than a sign that things will truly change.
  18. KirbyDome89
    If you're insistent on framing this argument only within the last offseason we'll disagree on scope. If you're willing to cede that FO decisions this season were in fact not made in a vacuum but you feel as though Shoemaker and Happ making up 40% of a rotation that was expected to compete for a WS was prudent, again, we'll disagree. You're not "disproving," something by failing to argue in good faith. Posters are simply choosing not to engage in an endless back forth where "rules for thee not for me," (proposed trades, signings, ect shot down by your own hypothetical outcomes) is the standard and criticism of the FO's lack of pitching continuity 5 years in is equated to being a keyboard warrior.
  19. KirbyDome89
    So they'd be 20ish games behind the Sox instead of 30ish at seasons end? They're 3 games under .500 in that stretch with Berrios starting for nearly the entirety of it; I don't see how that's cause for relief. Some better health and good breaks? The FO needs to get markedly better overnight at identifying FA arms or swing some massive trade(s) to fill out 4 rotation spots and half a bullpen but it's an overreaction to think the Twins aren't going to compete for the division in '22? Talk about exaggerating... Buxton not missing half a season helps but I haven't heard anybody arguing that this team isn't capable of scoring runs, and even his defense couldn't save this train wreck of a staff.
  20. KirbyDome89
    This is where I'm at, although I'd say I'm a little less neutral than you are at the moment. I don't think it's "entitled," (not your characterization) to criticize the total lack of impact pitching over a 5 year span, especially since it was the calling card of this FO, or at least that's how it was spun when they were brought in. I agree with @Vanimal46 though, ownership isn't exactly known for having a quick trigger, and whether or not we as fans are done with this FO next year, they aren't going anywhere. I think they bought themselves at least another 2 years, maybe (probably) more depending on how arms matriculate; rookie struggles aren't uncommon. I'm buckling in for a '22 season where we're sold hope and small positives are extrapolated in order to justify this season + the off season. I hope I'm wrong and we get the 2+ rotation arms you're calling for.
  21. KirbyDome89
    Is is reasonable to eschew other means to acquire pitching and rely on bottom tier FAs to fill out 40% of your rotation in year 5 when the expectation is to compete for a WS? This FO put themselves in that position. The disaster that is this season is a culmination of decisions that stretch back beyond just this year. They shouldn't get a pass because the FA crop, which they chose to rely on, wasn't great.
  22. KirbyDome89
    Me neither, if the post came off that way it wasn't my intention. I'm a little leery to assign much value to '20, good or bad. I think that '19 staff was top heavy and buoyed by guys having career years but that's far from failure. It's my main issue as well. They've had enough time to at least bridge the gap and instead we're likely going to watch a lost season in '22 with the potential for things to get much worse depending on pitching prospect health/production.
  23. KirbyDome89
    The most glaring issue in the organization when this FO took over was pitching. They were brought over specifically to fix that. We're 5 years in, the big league staff is as bad if not worse, the FA pitching signings have been a borderline disaster overall, we've seen two impactful trades & each crashed back down to earth (as of now), there has been essentially zero impact from arms that were drafted or acquired in that time, and now we're staring at a minimum of one more year of subpar pitching with the hope that at least one (we need 2) of the more highly regarded pitching prospects are able to stay healthy and show they can stick near the front of the rotation. Yeesh I agree with some of the posters above, there are places other than an empty cupboard to find food.
  24. KirbyDome89
    2017: Matt Belisle? 2018: Lance Lynn, Addison Reed, Michael Pineda, Fernando Rodney 2019: Martin Perez, Blake Parker 2020: Pineda, Odo, Rich Hill, Homer Bailey, Tyler Clippard, Sergio Romo 2021: Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles Off the top of my head those are the "memorable," FA signings by year. They've had better results with position players, Cruz being one of the best signings in team history, but that group of arms is uninspiring at best. I didn't bother to look through the laundry list of failed minor league contracts/waiver claims that found their way onto the major league roster and bombed. The downright atrociousness of this season might be an outlier, but the struggles in FA, as far as pitching is concerned ,seems like a pattern to me.
  25. KirbyDome89
    If this is about a quick reset at AAA I can squint and see the logic. There's really no reason Cave should be on this roster in August and September if they're trying to find ABs in the OF. Refsnyder is a nice story, but he's at 60ish ABs on the season. If it comes down to it, getting Gordon consistent playing time should take precedence over a 30 year old journeyman and a guy who looks washed.
×
×
  • Create New...