Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,798

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    Right and it's worth saying again - no one here wants to give up on Buxton either.
  2. TheLeviathan
    I wish him all the best in his retirement and thank him for his years of entertainment through his excellent career.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I haven't given up, I'm also not ready to invest long-term. I need to see if this Brittle Buxton continues. And people are right to point out that his floor is not a major league player. We've seen almost 1000 ABs at this point and he hasn't been a major leaguer for all but a hundred or two of them. I get being optimistic and wanting to buy low, but I don't get spinning the downside. It's been dire and injuries are only part of that.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I don't want to argue about what is or isn't outrageous. I don't even know where one would cap that kind of qualification. What I'm interested in is lots of people doing these blueprints. I think your blueprint was fun to read and very interesting. I'm glad you put your thoughts out there to be critiqued now and later. I've done the same. I hope many others do as well. It will create awesome discussions now and in the future. Plus, it prevents those hindsight experts from claiming what a savant they were in July with nothing to show for it now. I also think these provide a lot of creative, awesome ideas for people to chew on. It's with that in mind that I offered that criticism. Much like there are budgets/limits on many other games we play, they exist to help foster creative and strategic thinking. People being able to say "I want a budget at (fill in any number really) because it's "not outrageous" sorta kills a lot of that creativity and intrigue. Think about any board game with a starting budget, or DFS, etc. These budgets exist for entertainment and strategy purposes Hell, if I wanted to say $160M is "not outrageous....I could literally add Bryce Harper to my plan. I guess I'd prefer we stay within the current budget to encourage more creative thinking and less wishful thinking. That isn't to say wishful thinking is a bad thing, it's just a helluva lot less interesting. IMO, it would make this very awesome idea even better for discussion on the site if people didn't go above 120-130M.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I would think that most plans should want to stay below 125M. It makes the exercise more interesting, IMO, when we have to create within a reasonable budget. Going too far outside what is most reasonable to expect does sorta feel like cheating. I’m not saying that o criticize a plan I’m already on record as liking, just pointing out how much value I think the exercise has when we try to stay in the same range. The argument of "there's no reason..." isn't particularly compelling. Especially in light of decades of evidence.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I prefer mine...but I'm good with this,
  7. TheLeviathan
    I don't believe your characterization of your criticisms is at all accurate. So I think that's where the conversation ends.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Your criticisms are too much, too dour, and too soon. Is a bad loss in a poorly played game "progress"? Of course not. And there is room to criticize. Your particular brand of criticism is still several years too soon.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Nope, not progress. They are taking heat and rightfully so, that was a terrible effort.
  10. TheLeviathan
    The defensive coaches are not impressive. Young or not, there is enough talent to show better than this.
  11. TheLeviathan
    And that's fine, I just don't like the logic of "Well X failed, so Y will too" Because you can apply that to trades, FAs, prospects, or virtually anything the FO might do.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I might quibble with the contracts being a bit low, but I would be down for either. Good stuff.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Because they are entirely different human beings? Not a guarantee, but neither is your logic.
  14. TheLeviathan
    What's Ben Revere doing these days?
  15. TheLeviathan
    I'm very skeptical about how many players could do this well. I appreciate trying this in the minors or ST, but once the player is in the majors I am far more skeptical of experimenting.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I'm not trying to trip you up. I just read you taking a stance I can agree with (more flexibility) and taking it a step too far where it starts to butt heads with another item I value (defensive excellence). The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B very much makes me worry about quality of defensive play. Consider the value a great SS has over even an average one. Two high-end professional athletes, trained and experienced at the same position, but the inferior defender can have serious consequences for your team. Why wouldn't a left-fielder, stuck at 2B, also cause significant problems? Even in small samples? That's where you lose me. I don't want to experiment, in real games, to prepare for low probability scenarios. If I want to create flexibility, I'm using ST or Fall League for that.
  17. TheLeviathan
    You use your phrases at the end of this. How is this not advocating the model of playing players at other positions, during the season, at positions they are not as good at, to prepare for off-chance/worst case scenarios/"failure"? Of course I lumped Shaw into this with Milwaukee. Why would your logic on his handling be any different than the examples here?
  18. TheLeviathan
    Trying some things out in ST is absolutely fine by me.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Aren't the granular examples the ones that matter? It's one thing to argue that guys can move around to accommodate acquisitions, it's another thing to suggest that Boston and Milwaukee should have played those guys at 2B earlier in the year. You said that several times, isn't that playing a guy at a noticeably inferior position on the off-chance something happens in the future? I don't think that's sound thinking. I'll cross that bridge when it comes, I'm not going to use prep for worst case scenarios drive my every day lineups. So when you suggest things like that, it does seem like you're willing to choose things at the detriment of the team in the name of flexibility.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Well, there may be reasons beyond positional flexibility that are aiding the Dodgers and Cubs success. Just saying. As for the rest, I don't find "Prepare for Failure" to be particularly helpful as an answer. You gave a lot of examples of shuffling outfielders. That's fine, but that's the easy answer. I don't think most people would find the view that you play your LF/RF/CF somewhat interchangeably as all that new or unusual. Where I get....skeptical?....is when you criticized Milwaukee and Boston for not playing Shaw and Mookie at 2B during the season. Which plays to this "prepare for failure" mantra and how the rubber meets the road. You seem to imply that teams should knowingly play guys at inferior positions to get them experience in worst case scenarios, but you don't seem to see the problem with how far you extend that thinking. I mean, should the Twins start Tyler Austin at catcher because he's the emergency guy just to get him reps there? If Sano at SS is plan C....should we start him there 10 times a year? On the off-chance we acquire a shortstop mid-season should we play Polanco in CF just in case? That's where I struggle with some of your comments. "Failure" can mean a lot of different things. Playing Shaw at 2B in April when they didn't have a good backup 3B, just on the off-chance they made a July trade....seems like a bizarre way to approach things. I don't think that's sound thinking at all.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I'll have to dig through your posts, but I feel like I've read that sort of terminology. So here's what I've heard you say: "Prepare for every eventuality" What does that mean, if not rotating a lot of players to alternate positions?
  22. TheLeviathan
    Where I start to doubt that is where someone suggests Rosario playing 3B is equivalent to Polanco playing SS. Saying one is just as doable as the other blurs the line a lot IMO. Or to imply that the risk of defensive liabilities are the same, doesn't sit well with me. It shows very little discretion/care between what kind of skill sets are vital at each position, player experience there, etc. Flexibility, to me, is a tool you use to enhance your roster. But it's not going to be a fit for many players, maybe even most. RB talks a lot about every guy having multiple gloves and reps at multiple positions. I just don't see how you envision a scenario like that in which you aren't advocating players at positions they aren't good at. And then name-dropping Polanco as a below average shortstop as being the same thing as tossing Rosario at third....makes me think my gut reaction is right. What he is asserting IS ok with players ill equipped to man the position.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I almost never see you throw in the caveat that the players have to be able to play the position well. You seem to prize flexibility over ability. I see flexibility as an asset to be sought, not a strategy to force. Sometimes it does feel like you advocate the latter.
  24. TheLeviathan
    One is a position the player has barely ever played and a major change in style (OF-IF) and the other is a position the player frequently played in the minors and is only slightly different. We've seen the ability players have to completely trainwreck games and seasons by being inadequate in the field. Whatever offensive advantage you gain from putting players into a game at different positions can easily be negated by their inability to play those positions. Otherwise....why not field 9 slugging 1B? Just sign nine guys that mash the ball and throw a dart every game? You might say, "of course I don't want that"...but I don't see much of any indication in your posts that you weigh this factor at all.
  25. TheLeviathan
    It's a far cry to justify playing Rosario at 3B by comparing it to Polanco playing SS.
×
×
  • Create New...