Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

 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 TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    It isn't coincidence.....it's July 6th and trade season. No grand conspiracy. If Donaldson is now a half time DH to stay on the field.....I'd argue that's even more reason to move on. The best argument for keeping him is as a full time, good fielding 3B.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Well... I guess I'm confused. Why do you have to dislike him to see the prudence in trading him? I love JD as a player and as a signing. I love Byron Buxton as a person and a player. Making decisions about the team shouldn't include those considerations if moving them is better for the team. This article is about being a GM, not a fanboy. Players age and with age comes increased issues with durability and health. And, yes, he continues to be a health liability just like when we acquired him. (the year in Atlanta off of which we signed him appears to be something of a health fluke) I make no argument we will be downgrading the position to some degree by trading him. Though, given his health issues and the available options, perhaps not as much as some would like to think.
  3. TheLeviathan
    "No reason at all" doesn't feel remotely fair or realistic. I can understand not wanting to move him, but there are plainly obvious reasons it would be prudent.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Well argued Nick and spot on IMO. I like Donaldson and have for a long, long time. (I LOVED that deal for Toronto way back in the olden days) Reality about injuries has to be part of planning your team and it's future and the combo of JD's age and his injuries since arriving are just too much to ignore. If you can free up room to add pitching, while adding some talent for him....you simply have to do it. It's a shame that signing didn't deliver what they thought it would, but you can let that romantic sunk cost decide your future.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Good god what a hideous baseball game.
  6. TheLeviathan
    The only unlikable thing about Donaldson is his inability to stay on the field.
  7. TheLeviathan
    I agree we can't draw specific conclusions and in general I agree with your analysis. But I think the most comparable player to Buxton is Josh Donaldson, except that Buxton has even larger red flags in his profile than Donaldson. There are a couple other factors involved on both sides (Donaldson with a much more established track record of production, Buxton younger, etc.) but I have a really, really hard time believing any GM looking to keep his job is going to give 5 years of term, with no conditions, to a player so incapable of staying on the field. I think it's highly likely he has to accept the shorter "make good" deals unless he comes back from this most recent injury and is an ironman until FA next year. Then all bets are off.
  8. TheLeviathan
    The open market should inform any action you take. Otherwise you are bidding against yourself/your own desperation/player's delusion. If that's the case I don't see why you would entertain the idea at all.
  9. TheLeviathan
    What if he's not getting anything close to that kind of term? Teams have shifted to being willing to pay higher AAV at the expense of term because they've started to realize large, short contracts are less likely to become franchise-killers. I could see someone giving Buxton a healthy "make good" contract with a shocking AAV. What I can't see is anyone want to budge on keeping the term incredibly short because of the enormous risk he carries.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Yeah we are all guessing. Hell....maybe he gets 6/180 if the next year and a half is healthy and amazing. But I think 3/70 is a more likely number given the significant risks and the trends league wide. Go ahead and pull up contract trackers over the last 5 years. Contracts over 4 years simply arent happening as much, much less with this level of risk.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Worth noting....the frequency of 5+ year deals has dramatically tailed off in recent years. Only the most elite players with few risks are getting contracts like that. I feel like a lot of these projections are ignoring a significant change in trends. Aaron Hicks was a much healthier player than Buck and that deal looks terrible now. Plus it has zero chance of being signed in today's market.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I think what the Twins gave Donaldson could be helpful. Donaldson was older with a much more established track record of success but got 4/92. I think he is far more likely to see short term, make good offers as teams hesitate to invest in free agency in general, much less players with huge red flags.
  13. TheLeviathan
    I just want to commend you for a highly interesting post that probably took you some time to put together!
  14. TheLeviathan
    These are the kind of arguments necessary when you're trying to make a case that just doesn't make any sense. Byron Buxton, if he were a free agent in two months, would not get a $100M contract. No GM, anywhere in the league, is going to sign on for that. None. Could he get a 1 year 20M deal? Sure. Maybe even 2/40. Someone might bet on the potential but they'd hedge the years or make it incredibly incentive driven. In the age of analytics he would be lucky to get half of a 5/100M contract straight up. Berrios, on the other hand, is not only certain he could get 5/100 but it's likely low for what he'd get on the open market. This conversation is really that simple. If you're convincing yourself Buxton is worth 5/100 but not Berrios, you're going to have to engage in some pretzel logic to get there.
  15. TheLeviathan
    This. Any other take is like buying a mansion because you're convinced that next lottery ticket is "the one" It's fundamental asset mismanagement of the worst kind: ignoring the obvious on fool's hope.
  16. TheLeviathan
    You are literally agreeing with the original post but continuing to claim you disagree with it. It's nonsensical. At best you devolved to pure semantics about the words ability and trait which is fallacious and unfair.
  17. TheLeviathan
    It came up because it seemed odd as a sarcastic dig at a post that agrees with you. I think the problem came when you bristled at a completely innocuous post, not with your overall point. You found (or implied at the very least) disagreement where there really was none. I think we all share lament that the young man can't play and there isn't much he can do about it.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Durability is a natural athletic ability and the extent to which it can be improved is limited. Nelson Cruz, Max Kepler, and pretty much every other human on the planet has no chance of improving their speed to the degree that Buxton possesses. Minor improvements? Sure. But they can't transform into something they're not. Likewise, there is nothing Buxton can do about his natural durability and resistance to injury. It's simply not a gift he was blessed with. It's not a "skill" like hitting or throwing a curveball, it's more like how fast you run or how tall you grew. At this point I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I'll leave it at this: The original poster just lamented that for all of Buck's talents, he wasn't blessed with the ability to stay on the field and there's nothing he can do about that. And it sucks for all of us, but especially his career. Whatever "weird" road you took us down from there is due to your interpretations of that rather simple, and IMO undeniable, observation.
  19. TheLeviathan
    You quoted something but then interpreted it in a really strange way.....Let's try a simple analogy by using the same phrase you think is so dastardly and then subbing a few words: If I say "Kepler doesn't have the same ability to run the bases as Buxton"....have I somehow created an "onus for Kepler to cultivate that"? I would think not. It's just an acknowledgement of natural ability and natural abilities vary from player to player. Can Kepler work around the edges of his speed or baserunning to make modest improvements? Sure. I feel like Buxton did that by adding some muscle in fact. But at the end of the day, just like speed and power, durability is something I'm not sure you can fix. And some players, again just like speed and power, either have it or they don't. You seem to acknowledge what the poster said, but then twisted it for some reason I can't understand. Nowhere in that post does it blame Buxton for anything, that's something you read into it. (Unfairly, IMO, given how easily your example can be exposed by analogy) Yes, it's not in his control, but there is no reason not to acknowledge it either. The guy has been a pro for almost a decade now and this is what it is. His body just doesn't allow all that talent to stay on the field. It sucks. I feel bad for him most of all.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I think Byron Buxton is actively losing money not being on the field. This argument doesn't wash because, especially in baseball and now more than ever, teams are hesitant to dole out money to players they can't count on in the field. I think this post implies Buxton isn't "tough" which is different than acknowledging he isn't "durable" or "available". Make no mistake, every IL stint he has potentially costs him MILLIONS.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I really think you read something in that wasn't there. It is a criticism of just, for whatever each individual reason, Buxton cant be available. It isn't to blame Buxton but acknowledge the reality. We should all be at that point with Donaldson too.
  22. TheLeviathan
    No and that's a fallacious argument. The poster you responded to clearly said that injuries have a large component of luck to them. I will make no argument that Buxton's hand injury was some really terrible luck. But the point of that post was to put this unlucky break in the context of what seems like an endless array of "unlucky" breaks. At some point constantly falling victim to injuries of all sorts stops being a pattern we can deny based on luck and one we simply have to recognize isn't going away. Not all athletes can match their amazing skillset with durability. It sucks, he's a great person and a great player, but at some point we have to come to terms with the reality of his ability to stay on a baseball field.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Yup and I'm willing to pay more, but it's a reasonable starting point that won't offend him and gets us on the path to keep him around.
  24. TheLeviathan
    I'd offer him 5 and 105M. I think it might work.
  25. TheLeviathan
    Trading Berrios will be the much harder pill for me to swallow. We've had so few quality pitchers developed here and I just love the kids approach. Buxton, no matter how stirry a straw he is for the drink, is basically a part-time player. You can't give part-time position players mega-deals. His body isn't going to get more resilient and his best asset is going to start declining sooner than you think. Couple that with the burned bridges we know about and let's hope he can flash for the contenders. Moving on from his is in the best interest of this team and for the mental well being of the fans.
×
×
  • Create New...