Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

nicksaviking

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    25,138

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

 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 nicksaviking

  1. nicksaviking
    Agreed, it's unlikely. I can't imagine it would be two of those three, unless maybe it's Arraez and Gordon who are still both dirt cheap. More likely one of the three and a prospect(s). And if "unlikely" turns out to be "impossible", don't trade just for the sake of trading.
  2. nicksaviking
    It was Rodon or bust. I could have gotten behind Bassitt I suppose but he's pretty dang old and his best pitch is his 93 MPH fastball. I'd be concerned about what happens to him once age starts eating away at his velocity. But Syndergaard, Walker and Taillon are not top of the rotation pitchers, at least not any longer. They don't go above Gray and Ryan and if that's not where you're aiming, why would you bring in more pitchers when there is already considerably more upside in Mahle, SWR, Varland, Ober and even Maeda? I think Nick Gordon and Luis Arraez have probably already hit their ceilings and their values will likely never be higher, and Max Kepler has become expendable, so if they want to swing a trade using those guys as pieces, go ahead, but it's got to be for a reasonably good arm, don't take a spot away from the upside group just because we need some action around here.
  3. nicksaviking
    Seth, I really need this explained. When he declined the option years, Correa called himself top end designer clothing and said the Twins had to pony up if they wanted to keep him. Corey Seager and Francisco Lindor already had deals that dwarfed 285M and everyone in the baseball world took Correa’s comments to mean he wanted a similar, if not larger deal. Why were theTwins the only entity that thought they could sign him for that much less? It doesn’t add up.
  4. nicksaviking
    I certainly don’t know better but as large as it was, what I, everyone on this site, the entire MLB community and Scott Boras knew, was that Carlos Correa was never accepting a 285M deal. What I’d like, is for the Twins to be up front, tell us fans that they aren’t signing free agent x and that they are focusing on internal options or whatnot. I can not speak for others, but the charade of making offers they know the player won’t accept is the bothersome issue.
  5. nicksaviking
    I have never heard of earnest money in professional sports. I’d have to think if it was a thing, I’d have come across it referenced at some point. The Pohlads made their fortune ruthlessly foreclosing on poor farmers during the depression though. If there’s one thing they’re better at than Boras, it’s probably real estate maneuvers. They’d pay no earnest money but demand the player pay all the closing costs.
  6. nicksaviking
    10 for 285M was never getting this done and the Twins had to know that. He wasn’t going to do a deal less than, Seager, Lindor and Turner. Correa and Boras would probably have rather done another 1-year, make-good deal. But why wouldn’t the Twins know all about Correa’s medicals? They signed him last year. Did this uber conservative team just say screw it, we’ll do this potential 100M contract ? Because if there WAS something off with him, that would put the two 35M option years in a different light. Doubtful; they should have known all there was to know already, and more so than any other team. They needed no more time to vet this. But what really gets me is why is this coming from The Athletic?!? Where are OUR reporters? Doogie just did an interview with Falvey and Correa’s name never came up once. How the hell is that journalism?!?
  7. nicksaviking
    It has absolutely nothing to do with the AAV. The problem is that they KNEW 285M would not get him here but acted like they thought it would. Going to 285M but no higher says that they wanted people to think they were serious, because yeah, that's serious money, but they didn't really want to pay it. It'd be like me offering Bruce Springsteen 20K for a private concert and bragging to my friends about how I'm a high roller. That's too much money for me to spend, but obviously he's got better gigs lined up and wouldn't accept it anyway. It was either an act, or extreme naivety. Both options are problems in my mind.
  8. nicksaviking
    No penalties, the floor and cap should be firm, just as the other pro leagues. And I'd say the difference between the two should be 50M max, probably closer to 25M. Probably use the other four leagues as guideposts for that determination. Well, MLB could use the other leagues as guideposts for plenty of ideas at this point I guess. They ain't getting anything right as it stands now.
  9. nicksaviking
    It's miserable up here, I'm thinking Costa Rica? Not to vacation, but to buy the country of course.
  10. nicksaviking
    I think if you have to platoon your SS, you're probably not a very good baseball team. And if you're not a very good baseball team, you probably shouldn't be making TWO trades for shortstops that aren't good enough to start on their own.
  11. nicksaviking
    I'll be cheering for the Mets this year. Not because I like them and I'm happy with this situation, but because the best way to get a national discussion about revenue sharing and salary caps and floors is by having the Mets win a bought championship which is exponentially more egregious than what the Dodgers and Yankees have done in the past.
  12. nicksaviking
    Boras has repeatedly said he doesn't go back to teams to give them a chance to top the highest bidder. Going to the Mets tracks with what was happening leading up to the Giants deal. The Mets were late to the table with a 300M+ deal. The Giants deal started to fall through, so Boras went to his next highest offer. He would have NEVER come back to the Twins, the Twins would have had to come back to him, with an offer higher than the Mets, and they'd have had to do it prior to last night. They have Boras' number, and they saw the news just as we did. Boras didn't need to spell anything out for them. When they didn't bump up their offer even after Bogaerts and Turner signed, Boras tried to pump them up and throw platitudes about the Twins being big shots, but the Twins never took the bait and let their offer stand, knowing it was not good enough.
  13. nicksaviking
    No, why? This isn't 1985, shortstops are not supposed to be offensive blackholes any longer. Mateo, Kiner-Falefa, I wish people would stop talking about trading assets for these bat-less options. Are these guys supposed to be stop gaps? Or long term players? Because why would you trade prospects for a stop gap and why would anyone want a guy who can't hit to be the long term answer? Lots of people THINK they want a guy with a stud glove, offense be damned, but after two months of failing to bring runners home, the whole state is calling for Andrelton Simmons and Pedro Florimon to be replaced.
  14. nicksaviking
    But there’s nothing different now except they gave Gallo a dumb deal. 285M is clearly the max the Twins will do. And it’s quite possible they won’t even do that considering any reasonable person knew Correa would never have accepted that offer.
  15. nicksaviking
    The Twins knew $285 wasn’t going to work at the latest when Bogaerts and Turner agreed to terms (and probably when Seager and Lindor signed). Bogaerts and Turner agreed to deals over a week before Correa did yet the Twins never raised their offer, despite knowing it would not get the deal done. Can’t see them raising it now.
  16. nicksaviking
    True. Only one party would want to leak this. But I suppose something was going to have to be said if there was going to be a delay in the actual signing.
  17. nicksaviking
    I hope that's not true, because we still owe SF a good dose of shenanigans after the whole Sam Dyson debacle.
  18. nicksaviking
    Well, I mean, they DID last year right?
  19. nicksaviking
    Yeah, I'd guess the deal, as it stands now, still goes through. For one, the Giants have very little long term payroll-impactful contracts. For another, they'll not want to find themselves on Boras Claus naughty list for the next decade. He's got all the best toys.
  20. nicksaviking
    Maybe he got an ulcer after finally looking at the rest of the Giants roster?
  21. nicksaviking
    If they want one of those name brand relievers, fine. They can underwhelm just as well as non-name brand relievers I guess. Hard pass on all the others. Just because we've heard of these guys, doesn't mean they're good. Brandon Drury has been either hurt or awful since 2017. You're going to give a multi year deal to a 30-year-old after ONE bounce back season? Get out of here, we've all seen how this con plays out. And QO or not, we should all read the warning label on 33-year-old pitchers who lost a MPH on their fastballs the year prior. Even if that doesn't scare anyone, how about we stay away from groundball pitchers in the season where the shift is being banned. With that last sentence still in my head, the trade rumors regarding Sonny Gray make a bit more sense.
  22. nicksaviking
    If he has no value, obviously I wouldn't trade him. But he's controlled for five more years and can play CF. If there's a team offering a good controllable starter and wants Gordon as a 2nd piece of their return, I jump on it.
  23. nicksaviking
    Just like with Arraez and Kepler, my Gordon opinion won't be popular, but I don't think what he did last year is going to end up being indicative of what he does for his career. His measly 4% walk rate and .340 BABiP would have me selling high.
  24. nicksaviking
    No doubt, but the Vikings seem to end up drafting more star players compared to the rest of their competitors than the Twins do compared to theirs.
  25. nicksaviking
    I don't know that I'd go that far giving them credit. NFL teams HAVE to spend a certain amount, so it seems that there'd be zero incentive to NOT try to win a Super Bowl.
×
×
  • Create New...