|
|
#21
07-30-2006, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Twins question
They're two games out of the wild card and they have more than a few games left against the Sox. They've got a pretty good shot without doing anything.
|
|
#22
08-02-2006, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
[ QUOTE ]
But you can say that about anybody - "they'd have kept him if he made less." The key thing is not that he was making too much, but what did they value him at? [/ QUOTE ] i don't understand how someone can contend that releasing a player because he wants more money than the team is willing to pay him can be classified as 'not for money reasons'. i would use that term to describe a situation like frank thomas or TO in the past offseason, where if the team was simply willing to open their pocketbooks more, it would not have solved their differences. i would agree with the assessment that the twins could certainly have afforded ortiz if they wanted him, but they weren't using him correctly anyway. it was a good thing for all parties involved that he moved on.
|
|
#23
08-02-2006, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the Twins currently dont have enough talent to get into the playoffs as they are overmatched by both the White Sox and Yankees. Maybe making a move is a bad choice but doing nothing will result in the Twins missing the playoffs this year I am afraid. [/ QUOTE ] LOL the Twins are like 50-1 since June and swept the Sox a little while back... overmatched? There is nobody I want to face less in a short series. Beyond this, they have chemistry and have some veterans getting healthy for the home stretch. What could they realistically add that would make them a better team? The pitching market was totally barren and they would have been forced to overpay with somebody on the big club. NT
|
|
#25
08-03-2006, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
Every team loses free agents they would've kept if they had been willing to play for the minimum. The Twins didn't lose Ortiz because they were unable to afford him, they lost him because they didn't think he was any good.
|
|
#26
08-03-2006, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The Twins shouldn't make any moves. [/ QUOTE ]Why not Soriano? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what the Nationals wanted from the Twins but the deal they asked the Angels for was : Santana, Kendrick & Wood which is ridiculous
|
|
#28
08-04-2006, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
Nationals GM is a [censored] tard.
|
|
#29
08-04-2006, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the Twins currently dont have enough talent to get into the playoffs as they are overmatched by both the White Sox and Yankees. Maybe making a move is a bad choice but doing nothing will result in the Twins missing the playoffs this year I am afraid. [/ QUOTE ] hahahahah.... no. don't be stupid.
|
|
#30
08-04-2006, 06:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Twins question
[ QUOTE ]
Pohlad is simply a senile old douche. I remember in 87 he wouldnt even let his employees time off for the parade. The only reason the twins didnt get the stadium 10 years ago is because pohlad is such a cheap SOB and the state hates him. Heck, you can see it this year. They are in contention and I bet they will not add anyone important to help the team. It is very hard being a twins fan. [/ QUOTE ] This is true of any small-market team it has nothing whatsoever to do with Carl Pohlad though everyone mindlessly blames him.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
