Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

wsnydes

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,884

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

 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 wsnydes

  1. wsnydes
    Agreed, there's no reason to tear it down completely. Trading the pending FA's makes sense, but anyone that is still in the long term plans should remain or at least garner one heck of a haul in return. I'm not sure where Gibson falls in that discussion yet, but it doesn't hurt to shop him. Nothing says that they have to deal him. It could be argued that there are young starters knocking on the door for next season, if they're not already. With Lynn and Santana gone as FA's, they have May and Pineda coming back plus Romero, Gonsalves and Mejia all at AAA or on the current roster. May and Pineda could end up in the pen, but there is some depth there.
  2. wsnydes
    Trading one starting pitcher is gutting the team? One of the best trade chips is an established starter. I wouldn't be opposed to them keeping him, but I do think they should dangle him to see who bites. If they don't hear anything that interests them, there's no need to deal him. I want to see how he does next season before I give him an extension, but I'm not taking any options to improve this team off the table. The Twins are in a pretty decent spot regarding Gibson. Either teams meet their demands for a trade or the Twins keep him. That's a win/win situation.
  3. wsnydes
    "I don't want to talk about it..." Perfectly stated. Also, I wonder what sort of mad skills Magill has perfected under the close and watchful mentoring eyes of leader Matt Belisle. I mean, it would be nice to see some of these leadership qualities pay off on the mound, no?
  4. wsnydes
    I don't think anyone is celebrating. Accepting the fate of the team doesn't have to mean that people are happy for any of this. I'm happy to have some clarity on the season, but I'm in no way happy that it's another failed season. It doesn't mean that I don't want to watch meaningful baseball. It doesn't mean that I don't care whether they win or lose. But pretending this team is something that it is not doesn't help anything.
  5. wsnydes
    I don't have any scientific data to back this up, but it seems like this team runs on Gordon a lot. Considering how well they should know the Royals and Gordon in particular, this seems really odd to me. They seem to dare him to throw them out, and he most often does.
  6. wsnydes
    The idea would be that they'd be an improvement over that somebody, so that shouldn't be an issue.
  7. wsnydes
    I don't disagree with that assessment. My initial point was in regards to your first sentence in your first post of the thread that stated that there isn't a point of trading a player for a non-prospect. That was what I was initially replying to. Obviously the point is to maximize value, but if that is a non-prospect so be it. It's better than nothing. I look at it this way. If I'm not trying to improve the franchise, as a whole in some way, then I'm not trying. If I'm not trying, that's a problem. Letting a guy that has no future in the organization walk without any return, in my view, is not trying.
  8. wsnydes
    Even though I really don't disagree with you there, I still think that it makes no sense not to deal a guy even if its for a non-prospect type. You never know when that player may fill a needed role or even strike gold they become a solid player. Letting a guy walk for nothing when you have a chance to get something in return makes no sense to me. I don't care how many of those types of players the organization has. The exception in that case would be if you felt that you can extend the player before they hit the market.
  9. wsnydes
    You asked me what players have ever benefited from the late season call up, implying that that experience doesn't matter. Obviously you aren't going to call up someone that isn't already on the cusp anyway. I wasn't suggesting that you do. If you think I was speaking about Gordon in particular, I wasn't. My initial comment was a general statement about getting players experience. Nothing more, nothing less. Trading players opens opportunities for other players and that experience has value.
  10. wsnydes
    Are you suggesting that experience doesn't help one learn? How can it not help? Getting a taste and to know what you need to work on during the off-season to make the active roster in the spring. Experience is never a bad thing. If experience didn't matter, nobody would ever get better at what they do. It doesn't have to be someone from Rochester. It could be anyone that is called up. That experience gives them lessons that can't be taught anywhere but game situations at the highest level.
  11. wsnydes
    Carl did anyway. Unfortunately, I don't think that his kids have the same enthusiasm for the game. The team is just another business venture for them.
  12. wsnydes
    Trust me, they were going to do this when they went 0-162, 162-0 and then won the WS. If they spent that sort of time and effort for the on the field product, they'd be a world class organization by now.
  13. wsnydes
    While, I suppose in a sense coming up for one appearance and then immediately getting sent back down most certainly qualifies as "being shuttled", it's hardly productive and misses the point. It's also hardly in the best interest of the organization, especially when those guys are getting fewer innings due to the presence of someone like Belisle. One appearance hardly qualifies as a real opportunity. What are you telling your minor leaguers if the only "chance" that they get with the big league club is one appearance and you're back in the minors, deservedly so or otherwise. At this point, it most certainly makes more sense to see what you've got in the minors than signing aging veterans - especially those that are clearly not superior to what you've already got in house.
  14. wsnydes
    I've liked what this FO has done with the lower minors and the draft. While none of the offseason moves really excited me on their own, as a whole I thought they were solid additions. Even so, I wasn't expecting anything more than a similar record as last year. I did expect more consistency though. I haven't liked how they've tried to build and supplement the upper minors in support of the major league roster. I also haven't liked the depth moves on the fringe of the major league roster. I've loathed the refusal to bring up the deserving bullpen arms from AAA, instead bringing in the likes of Belisle. The in-season roster management has been nothing short of head scratching. I still need more time to decide what I think of this FO, but their reaction to an imploding season was not what I would have expected from a team that was poised to actually make a serious move in a poor division.
  15. wsnydes
    I don't really disagree with you (though don't really agree either ), but the benefit is that you free up a spot for a younger player to come up and play nearly every day and get his feet wet for next season. I think that experience is very valuable to a player.
  16. wsnydes
    The lack of meaningful moves and roster adjustment all season long is quite discouraging. I'm not ready to give up on the FO yet, but this season has more than it's fair share of brow raising decisions; both made and not made. I get how there isn't a lot of position player depth in the minors, but the pitching depth is there and not rewarded. Whether it be because they aren't on the same page as Molitor or whatever, the lack of meaningful moves has hurt this team.
  17. wsnydes
    Unfortunately, that's not what he meant. But I agree with what you said completely.
  18. wsnydes
    "we're creating some of our own problems..." The bad breaks I could handle just fine. The constant "creation of our own problems" is what drives me up a wall.
  19. wsnydes
    I tend to agree with you. However similar to what you mentioned, I'm also tired of this team missing opportunities to sell high. This is a prime time to change that. Dangle him and see who comes nibbling. Don't like what you see, keep him.
  20. wsnydes
    I'd certainly dangle him if nothing else. You don't have to deal him if you don't get an offer you like. Now would be the optimal time to deal him though. It would help with the perceived logjam for next season as well.
  21. wsnydes
    I believe that they inflate the concession prices a bit for concerts (I noticed it too), but you're correct in that they're inflated to begin with. Concessions and ticket prices keep rising, but attendance and the quality of the on field product are going in the opposite direction. The Eagles may have been the best thing I've seen on that field this year.
  22. wsnydes
    Struggled to contain the Cubs offense in the series finale? So they contained it in the first two games?
  23. wsnydes
    Rosario has cooled off some too.
  24. wsnydes
    I think a more appropriate comparison would be district/regional manager to Molitor's store manager. He's in charge of the players, the FO is supposed to give him what he needs. I don't disagree that the FO has fallen short in areas, but the things that Molitor is in control of are lacking in my view.
  25. wsnydes
    This is a reasonable point. Special assistant is pretty vague unless accompanied by what they're assisting with. My understanding is that they're just former players that help wherever they're needed and are available to current players to ask questions or work with them. Kepler has been working with Morneau on how to hit lefties, for instance.
×
×
  • Create New...