Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

twinsajsf

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    44

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About twinsajsf

  • Birthday 03/13/1966

twinsajsf's Achievements

Prep Ball

Prep Ball (1/14)

  • Making the Rounds
  • Bleacher Creature
  • Dipping a Toe
  • Dollar Dog Night
  • Keyboard Warrior

Recent Badges

44

Reputation

  1. twinsajsf
    One potential "X factor" here is that Neil Allen is a recognized changeup guru, who has helped many pitchers add this pitch effectively to their repertoire. If Nolasco can stay healthy and allow Allen to work with him, maybe he can improve the pitch enough to make it an effective weapon, rather than scrapping it.
  2.    gagu reacted to a post in a topic: Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work
  3.    spinowner reacted to a post in a topic: Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work
  4.    bird reacted to a post in a topic: Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work
  5.    Squirrel reacted to a post in a topic: Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work
  6.    Bill Parker reacted to a post in a topic: Article: On The Twins' Cheapness And Showing Your Work
  7. twinsajsf
    Thank you, Bill! I've been trying to say exactly this with occasional posts for several years now, but have not been able to do so as eloquently or comprehensively as you have done here. I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said, and look forward to reading more from you. If you post more, then hopefully I can avoid my own clumsy attempts to make some of these points going forward:).
  8. twinsajsf
    On Sano in RF: "less than large defensive shoes to fill". I've been waiting for someone to acknowledge this. Lost in all of the angst about whether Sano can be at least an adequate (not embarrassing) right fielder is that we employed arguably the worst right fielder in MLB last year. Even if Sano is well below average at the position, that might still be an upgrade over last season.
  9. twinsajsf
    OMG, all this time I thought we were arguing about veterans vs. prospects. Honestly, if it's down to Stauffer, Pelfrey and Milone for 1 spot, I don't even care .
  10. twinsajsf
    Still confused about how you are arriving at these distinctions. Stauffer performed well (57K in 56.1 IP, 2.56 ERA) in the ML play, while Tonkin/Achter (I assume these are the two you are anguishing over) performed similarly in MiL play. None impressed in ST (though tonkin/Achter had smaller sample sizes and Stauffer's poor outing were the multi-inning ones when he was still competing for the 5th starters role. So, tell me again why Tonkin and/or Achter trump Stauffer? For what it's worth, I would have had no problem with Achter, in particular, claiming the 7th spot over Pelfrey/Milone, if that's the direction they end up going. Maybe over Boyer also, although if you can remember back that far (prior to his surprising retirment), he was a very good ML releiver also, and has been outstanding this Spring, so hard to argue either way too forcefully on that one. But over Stauffer? Hmm . . . no, that makes no sense.
  11. twinsajsf
    Hmm . . . do you mean "great" or "good", and how long is "longer term", because he hs been "good" for the last three seasons (albeit in Petco Park). I also think it would have been a stretch at the time of the Stauffer signing (or even now, for that matter) to consider Milone/Pelfrey as "a lot more (veteran) talent" than Stauffer, particularly bullpen talent, since neither has actually done that in his career. They also had no idea that they were getting Graham or that he would earn a spot in the bullpen if they did get him. In the end, regardless of how it ultimately plays out, it seems prudent to sign a good veteran reliever for not much money as a starting point for repairing a lousy bullpen. The worst that can happen is that a bunch of guys perform well in ST and you end up having to make a choice between at least reasonably good (veteran and/or young) options.
  12. twinsajsf
    Obviously, there is a lot of room for disagreement about whether the Twins should be trying to take what they consider to be the best team North with them initially or the team they think might be better a couple of months or years from now. For my part, I like that they they are trying to bring the best team North (which still may or may not include Pelfrey/Milone--we'll see), especially since it will already include a bunch of young guys still trying to establish themselves: Santana, Vargas, Arcia, Hicks/Rosario?, Pinto/Herrman?, Graham. I'm not harboring any illusions about winning the division this year, but I'm comfortable with the approach a bunch of young talent interspersed with solid veterans to see if we can actually get back to respectability in 2015 with Sano, Buxton, Berrios and Meyer pushing us beyond thereafter. Go Twins!
  13. twinsajsf
    Again, it might just be this simple: 1) Twins' bullpen was bad last year, + 2) Tim Stauffer was good last year, + 3) $2.2M is chump change in MLB = Twins sign Tim Stauffer. Maybe you're just overthinking it?
  14. twinsajsf
    Well, I guess that all depends on who you are comparing him to. Compared to all Twins relievers not named Glen Perkins, yes, he was good last year. Compared to MLB average relief pitcher ERA & K/9, yes, he was good (i.e. above average). Not great/elite (if that's what you meant to say), but good. Hard to complain about $2.2M for a good, veteran reliever on a team of mostly bad ones, but hey, that's just me.
  15. twinsajsf
    After four lousy seasons, the transition back to being a competitive (.500ish) club is as much psychological as physical. As such, my guess is that the Twins are trying to find a balance between going all in for young upside (with the potential to crash & burn) and trying to put their most competitive foot forward in April/May to try to foster a "this year is going to be different" attitude. The point is that, for them, I don't think the short-run is completely irrelevant, which is why these decisions are not easy ones.
  16. twinsajsf
    Umm . . . Stauffer had 9.4 K/9 last season (8.6 and 9.0 in 2013 and 2012), which trailed only Glen Perkins (9.6) among Twins relievers.
  17. twinsajsf
    Excellent article, Nick. Mauer makes a lot of money, so it's always fair to criticize him for lack of production when he plays poorly. But to question his character/toughness is ridiculous.
  18. twinsajsf
    Wait, didn't Correia go 9-13 for one of the worst hitting teams in MLB last year? How exactly does that equate to "an automatic loss"? I'm not opposed to trading him for value, but "dumping" him seems a little extreme.
  19. twinsajsf
    Nothing. We are at least one year away from contention, so let's just try to find out who can stick amongst the young guys we have: Arcia, Hicks, Parmelee, Presley, Mastro and maybe Buxton/Rosario as the season wears on. Maybe even Plouffe if Sano makes the big jump successfully. Parmelee and Hicks are former 1st Rounders, so let's give them both one more extended MLB tryout before moving on. If we were hoping to contend for a playoff berth in 2014, that would be different, but as it stands there is little downside and significant upside to letting these guys try to emerge as legit MLBers.
  20. twinsajsf
    Recognizing first the possibility that Kazmir had little interest in joining the Twins vs. A's, I'm wondering what the feeling is out there about Kazmir on a 2/22 vs. Nolasco on a 4/48 contract. Personally, I prefer Kazmir and his contract, since he has more upside and the commitment is shorter. In fact, I'd have gone higher (2/24 or 25) for Kazmir if he really did prefer the A's to see if he might think twice.
×
×
  • Create New...