Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Article: Available For Order: 2014 Offseason Handbook!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Now my head hurts:

 

Darnell, Vargas, Beresford, Achter, D. Ortiz

 

(I don't think they want to lose those guys, right?)

 

Polanco, Kepler

 

Knudson, Morales, Hauser, Watts (forgot him before)

 

(you can't say FIVE this time, so hopefully there's progress here)

 

Six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Kepler, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

 

Watts has to be one of them. I wasn't thinking about Roberts being needed because of the injuries, but there is no reason not to include him. So, I imagine swapping out Knudson for Watts could get you close.

 

I guess I don't understand why Ortiz wouldn't be added and why Kepler but not Polanco? I would think that Polanco is more of a risk to be taken (neither will, though) and Polanco, at this point, would seem like he could move up faster than Kepler, so the three years doesn't matter as much with him.

 

Anyway, goulik, you are going to get this. As long as some "observer" doesn't come in and swoop when we get to ten!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would add Ibarra and Watts. But I think by looking over my suggestions, Ibarra is not on it.

 

goulik, I think it will be your first seven there, plus Roberts and Salcedo. Add in Watts and that's ten. Hopefully I am right about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support Shane, I have been comparing ALL our lists. That is why some of these don't seem to fully make sense (Kepler but not polanco) but I think your right putting Watts back in. I am fairly convinced neither Kepler nor Polanco are on his list at this point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support Shane, I have been comparing ALL our lists. That is why some of these don't seem to fully make sense (Kepler but not polanco) but I think your right putting Watts back in. I am fairly convinced neither Kepler nor Polanco are on his list at this point...

 

I don't think I'd make that assumption...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the drawing board. It's be one thing if it were clear by now any 6 or 7 of these guys. I am not sure what you are going for here, Seth. Wimmers and Roberts off list because the injuries would scare other teams off too much?

 

Achter, Darnell, Beresford, Vargas, Polanco, Kepler, Watts, Salcedo, Dean, Turpen (Turpen, really????--I swear it seems based on what you have said . . . ), Fuentes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, 6 of these 7 are on Seth's list:

 

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Kepler, Watts, Vargas, and Wimmers (from post 23)

 

From post 38: six of the following are on the list:

 

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Kepler, Vargas, Wimmers, Beresford, Ibarra, Knudson, Roberts, Salcedo

 

So what the hell? Let's say the wrong assumption was made and that Watts is on Seth's list. So 5 of the first 6 are on Seth's list. That would mean that Seth thinks the Twins are adding one of: Beresford, Roberts, and Salcedo. This is not rational for the Twins to do. The guy added *must* be Beresford, however. There is no way they are going to risk someone close enough to help infield defense. No way.

 

Salcedo and Roberts safe because of injury history/slash not playing in AA yet. I get that, I suppose. I could see some team taking a chance though.

 

So I have to think irrationally to get this damn 11 done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking rationally, and *this* list needs no numeric response!:

 

If choosing only 11:

 

Achter, Beresford, Romero, Darnell, Ibarra, Ortiz, Watts, Wimmers, Vargas, and then Kepler and Polanco, if concerned about that latter two--if not--Roberts and Salcedo.

 

That's 3 (4) relievers, 2 starters, 0 catchers, 2 (2) outfielders, and 4 (3) infielders.

 

I really don't understand how the 11 could be not taken from this group of 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that was an attempt at humor, right? :)

 

Completely serious. I'm not going to try to de-code the other lists and how many they got right... so here's my list of 11, without a lot of thought.

 

Polanco, Beresford, Kepler, Vargas, Boyer, Darnell, Achter, Wimmers, Ibarra, Thompson, Hauser

 

I think 3 of those are very unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Achter, Beresford, Romero, Darnell, Ibarra, Ortiz, Watts, Wimmers, Vargas, and then Kepler and Polanco, if concerned about that latter two--if not--Roberts and Salcedo.

 

That's 3 (4) relievers, 2 starters, 0 catchers, 2 (2) outfielders, and 4 (3) infielders.

 

I really don't understand how the 11 could be not taken from this group of 13.

 

I'll not give you the exact same answer, but I'll try to help by giving you were I rank them. In other words, most likely add (in my opinion) is #1, then #2, etc. So, in your list above, you have my 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darnell, Achter, Romero, Vargas, Watts, Kepler, Polanco, Dean, Ibarra, Fuentes

 

8 of these, apparently. But you did us a solid and only listed 10, so that helps.

 

I swear it has gotta be no to Dean and Fuentes.

 

But you didn't have Beresford or Watts. But it would seem given all that Seth has said that they aren't included. How has no one gotten 9????

 

I just got 8, but Seth's 2nd most likely, 9th most likely, and 11th most likely are out there.

 

I have no idea who the 2nd most likely add is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...