Jump to content
The MLB Draft starts on Saturday at 1pm Eastern. Check out our mock draft board in the lead-up to the picks! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,010

  • 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 means you have one young starter to build around and a chance to play Polanco at his natural position with a glove-first guy at short. We simply will not contend for anything without adding talented pitchers. That is going to have to happen via trading and drafting. So why not use your highest value asset that also has minimal chance of being here much longer? That's what smart teams do, play the highest probabilities. Recognize what you are and don't pretend to be anything else. Not dealing Dozier means we had to settle for a much worse probability of immediate and future success.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Even if I believe in base runs it's still a 90 loss team who has only one meaningful starter that it could hope improves dramatically. Retaining Dozier means we also field half an infield with some serious question marks as well. (And Dozier is not stud himself)
  3. TheLeviathan
    How in the heck is that contradictory? Yes, I'm acknowleding it's not a 100% certainty (because he could, conceivably, his 100 straight home runs to start the year, it's just bloody unlikely), but it's as close to that as I can imagine. I would suggest to you that he goes on some binge early in the season is not "as likely" as my suggestion that he ages and has less team control. It also flies in the face of how valued position players have been mid-season the last five years. So if you're correct that his second half didn't impact his value, then his age and contract are even larger factors and make it even more important to deal him now.
  4. TheLeviathan
    We lost 103 games and will return virtually the same pitching staff. We may improve to a 90 loss team with luck....but that's still a 90 loss team. by the time we get this thing righted he's going to have dramatically less value.
  5. TheLeviathan
    No, I don't know, but it is vastly more probable he has less value. Id call it a near certainty.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Without serious pitching reinforcements I think I have better odds of achieving time travel than the Twins competing with Dozier performing.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Maybe. I don't know enough to project that. But I'd rather gamble on DeLeon than bleed out Dozier for a few more 90 loss seasons.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Of course no one player or one position is going to magically turn us around. But an ace goes a lot further than some random #4 starter who is ok rather than lousy. Star players make up ground in a hurry and I think you're underselling that by characterizing it as merely a bonus. While I don't want to just dump Dozier for anything, I also know the odds of him being remotely this value are slightly north of 0%. Not finding a way to maximize that now will represent a real loss we might pay for over the course of half a decade.
  9. TheLeviathan
    He doesn't need to "fall apart" to lose value. He just has to do all of these things that are guaranteed to happen: 1) Age 2) Have less team control 3) Not have a career year It's not "if" Dozier will lose value, the only questions are really how quickly he'll lose value and how much he'll lose.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I would call the Ace the sundae not the cherry. What we've been missing for the longest time it top end pitching. Having one isn't just a bonus, it's an enormous difference maker.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Fullmer was an injury prone player who was the Mets 7th best prospect. (He was 98th on the 100 list at midseason before being traded) Cessa was 16th, in the Mets system. That's akin to us taking Buehler and Stewart. I would say most people are looking for more of a haul than that.
  12. TheLeviathan
    They didn't wait, they decided to firesale. And they got two pieces back. My point was that it wasn't a "haul" by any stretch.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Gambling on Dozier's streakiness worries me considerably. But I question whether position players are all that valuable any more mid-season. When's the last one significant move? Cespedes? And that wasn't necessarily a "haul". I think off-season is the time to do this and I consider it a mini-disaster if we can't find a way to make that happen. We'll have lost a considerable asset's peak value.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Considering no position player has gone for any kind of substantial price mid-season for awhile (that I could find), "longshot" may be generous. If we don't deal him now we're either keeping him for two years and playing out the string or trading him at a much reduced value at some point in the future.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I would vote "Joe Mauer spontaneously combusting while watching a first pitch strike"
  16. TheLeviathan
    MLBTR took a few comments from LEN and extrapolated that he thinks it's a 1:1 deal. His actual article doesn't suggest it at all.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I think I find these grades more tolerable when I look them only as assessments of what was done with no context for expectations or anything else.
  18. TheLeviathan
    I was leaning posthumous. You optimist, you.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Relatively speaking, let's hope it's much quicker that that!
  20. TheLeviathan
    Some of those locally optimistic expectations belonged to you......*cough* MVP *cough*
  21. TheLeviathan
    Was speaking about us as a warm and fuzzy collective, But you're right, I take issue with Nick's grades for the reasons above. I think they're generally too bullish, even for the offense.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Really? Hmmm, for me Buxton sort of makes/breaks this group. Also, I'm sort of merging this and the infield thread as I'm commenting since they are both about the offense and defense more or less. I also think we inadequately factored in defense in a lot of this. (Which was also quite bad)
  23. TheLeviathan
    Perhaps, but when people say we are also factoring in "expectations" I think that drops it a bit. C/D sounds better and we're closer to a weak B at this point.
  24. TheLeviathan
    And yet our report cards have been solidly B/C........
  25. TheLeviathan
    Obviously in doing something like this there is a lot of subjectivity, but I really wonder how much the exercise is worth when we say "The offense was average, so the grades should be average too" Well, maybe. But some of the guys we are tossing Bs at in this were talked about as MVP candidates. Or guys that would be with the club all year long and weren't. Or guys that had ups and downs. I have a hard time giving anyone on this team better than a B. Dozier doesn't even go higher than that because he was a miserable suckfest of a black hole in our lineup for the first two months. It's....whatever. This is all an exercise in our down time and all that, but I think we're a few months past the trauma of the 2016 season and we've somehow forgotten just how bad it was.
×
×
  • Create New...