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

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by wsnydes

  1. wsnydes
    I don't understand what that last sentence means. Google Translate isn't very helpful either.
  2. wsnydes
    Does Davy Jones have to carry his own locker or does a clubhouse attendant have to? Or is that part of the rookie hazing routine?
  3. wsnydes
    Congrats to Eduardo!
  4. wsnydes
    If you're talking about Barrio in LF, that was already a bar area. It just got rebranded. I'm with you, one new bar is unneeded but I get it. I'm 35 and don't really drink beer (whiskey!!!), but otherwise fit into your demographic and I have no interest in it. Even if I wasn't boycotting the concessions, I wouldn't then either. We simply don't go to a baseball game to drink. We're there to watch a ballgame. I know that we're in the vast minority. I'm more interested in the food options, but even those just keep getting spendier and spendier. We may have one drink at a game, but that's it. It does seem as though they're losing touch with what going to a baseball game should be about. You can have the beer and the bars, but you're just driving away families.
  5. wsnydes
    Failing hard. There's a cheap shot about fitting right in with Twins FO in there somewhere... Is it too late to start the game thread for next season's home opener?
  6. wsnydes
    They think they're always right?
  7. wsnydes
    That has to be tough. In that vein, not that I really want to defend them, but I have to imagine calling these games as the TV/radio guys is borderline torture. Watching it at times is, so it stands to reason being "forced" to endure it must be worse...even if you're getting paid to do so.
  8. wsnydes
    Agree somewhat, perhaps you haven't conveyed your complete thought. Now and even next offseason is not the time to amass expensive FA talent. That should come in the next offseason at the earliest to fill needs that haven't been filled in-house. I do agree that a complete tear down is not what is needed. They have young talent and more on the way, so now is the time to amass more young talent. They're at the point where they basically unload the vets they can for something that will help them in the next 2-4 years. A total rebuild should have happened 4 years ago. The young talent they did bring in is approaching the bigs now, so the objective should be to clear room for them when they're ready. If you have to sign a AAAA player or decline phase vet to fill the gap for a year or so, fine. A plus to that would be that you could potentially flip them too.
  9. wsnydes
    I'm in a similar boat, but I'm in market . I attend the games that I've already paid for, but refuse to buy more. I used to buy concessions at games almost every game we attended. Between the shear cost of those now and the fact that I don't want to give them any more of my money, I've stopped buying anything at all. I don't have kids, but I don't know how a family of 4 on an average income can afford to go to many games. Even kids days on Sunday's seem to have a dwindling following, but that could just be because of the putrid product. Target Field gets less family friendly with each passing year. It's an absolute shame.
  10. wsnydes
    Keeping making it hard for people to view said product and keep it affordable for families and that almighty dollar will disappear quickly in the not so distant future. kids are that future dollar.
  11. wsnydes
    It has gotten hard to believe any of their attendance figures. Sunday's game was similar. announced was 26k and I would bet that it was in the 18k-20k range as well. Those are the good ones. There have been a few games that I've been to where I'd venture to guess that it's around half of what they announce. Games that have had decent crowds, Toronto in particular, turn out to be home games for the opposition.
  12. wsnydes
    The initial call ups for both didn't both me a whole lot because we didn't know how the season was going to go yet. It's the subsequent call ups without at PT that really bothered me. The Kepler situation was resolved itself now, but it irritated the heck out of me at the time. It still does, but less so. If it weren't for a Sano injury he may still be in that same situation.
  13. wsnydes
    The Kepler/Polanco situation(s) where they'd get called up to sit on the bench was pretty much did it for me. The Berrios and Meyer bit just sealed the deal.
  14. wsnydes
    Agreed. Keeping Plouffe wasn't a big deal without Park. There was still roster flexibility there. With Park, it became a much bigger deal and created so much roster clutter that putting a lineup together became far more difficult.
  15. wsnydes
    Exactly. I agree completely. It just makes no sense at all, especially coupled with the fact that Plouffe wasn't moved.
  16. wsnydes
    Agreed. Since payroll should not be an issue for the next few years, eating a large portion of the those contracts shouldn't be an issue considering they were willing to pay them to begin with. The object should be getting the best return possible and if that entails paying more for a guy you no longer have on your roster to get a better return, you do it.
  17. wsnydes
    Then why submit a bid at all? Even if it is to say, "look, we put in a bid!" why would they submit a competitive bid that had any chance at winning? Perhaps you're right, and that might even make some sense, but how they went about it didn't. I'm definitely with you that this move is the most confusing part of the offseason.
  18. wsnydes
    With the state of this franchise, throwing prospects into trade packages for expensive veterans would more misguided roster management. They need those prospects to rebuild. As others have stated, eating money on the expensive contracts is the way to go. The idea should be trade the older veterans to acquire young talent. The only real benefit that I can see to trading away prospects would be to get another prospect that plays a position of need within this organization. Trade youth areas of depth for areas of need. That's the only way that makes sense to package them with these veterans.
  19. wsnydes
    Where is Buxton? On the way to AAA to make room for May?
  20. wsnydes
    Beat me to it!
  21. wsnydes
    That's part of my point. It's still not hypocrisy. It's just being wrong, and that's the problem in the long term.
  22. wsnydes
    I think I'm with you there. It still bothers me that he got so little field time when he was up here and when Dozier couldn't hit a beach ball. I wish we had more to go from at the MLB level since the team exhausted his options while learning nothing. There is definitely risk there. I'm not sure he has anything really left to prove at AAA though. I don't really want them to give Dozier away. I think that's a luxury they have, but if a reasonable return comes calling I would pull the trigger. I really don't think it will happen, but wouldn't be shocked if it did either.
  23. wsnydes
    I know, but I'm at the point where getting Polanco PT is a priority. Since he's out of options, I need to see what I have in him. If someone will give me pieces that I can use to get better faster and free up that playing time, I do it. Nunez and Plouffe are "expendable" in that regard. Escobar plays solid enough SS that i'm not overly worried about it. He's not a SS on a contending team, but this team isn't contending now so that's moot. You are correct though. It's extreme. Considering where this team is and has been, it's definitely something needs to be considered IMHO.
  24. wsnydes
    It may not, and that's a fair point. It's not as though this team is likely to compete next year either, so signing a cheap veteran or a waiver wire guy as a backup in the offseason would be fine too. This is assuming that Plouffe is also dealt of course. Best case scenario, that guy plays well enough that he could be dealt as well. Perhaps the better wording would be "down the road" as opposed to next year. I don't see Dozier as a piece of the puzzle by the time this team should be a legitimate contender. Giving that playing time to Polanco instead, IMO, is the wiser move long term. I'm less concerned about the near term.
  25. wsnydes
    I'd move both if I could. The backup plan in my view would be Beresford unless they got a mIF in one of the deals (which I would find doubtful). I'm more concerned about winning starting next year than this year so I wouldn't even be opposed to Santana. I'd agree that it would suck, but it's not like this team is going anywhere anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...