Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,789

  • 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
    Epstein was a realist and asked Cubs fans to be the same. Took a little time, but the payoff is what matters. The Twins NEED to be realists this offseason, like they failed to be last offseason. And hopefully we'll enjoy the payoff in a few seasons too.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Again, something that need not be stated. No one here is under any delusions that the Twins FO is perusing the board for ideas. We're all stating opinions. And all stating opinions that we can assume mean the most reasonable thing.
  3. TheLeviathan
    You're missing the point. None of us advising the team to make trades or moves are advising them to take bad deals. I'm not assuming your "trade Ervin in July" opinion means you'd take 12 day old leftovers for him. I assume you mean to deal him for good value then. Make the same assumption of others. The fact this has had to be stated about 12 times on this thread is depressing.
  4. TheLeviathan
    It may save a lot of hassle around here if we all just assume that people want fair value unless indicated otherwise.
  5. TheLeviathan
    So the chicks are digging baseball again huh?
  6. TheLeviathan
    Then I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You agree with me he should be shopped this offseason and evaluate from there what is available.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Huzzah for new ideas!
  8. TheLeviathan
    If you want to argue Santana may be more valuable to deal next July, there may be merit in that. But it doesn't change my opinion - you should still be seeing what's out there for him right now. If you need to wait because the value isn't there, so be it.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Well, he sure wasn't planning that parade route of yours. We can be sure of that.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I hope that's the case with the new GM. I'm fairly sure the old GM was not the type to call others.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Not until a trade happens. If it doesn't, then no, we won't know.
  12. TheLeviathan
    How often do trades like that even happen? Teams spread their assets out, not lump them into one deal. I feel like you're suggesting something that doesn't happen and pretending it does. I wouldn't deal Santana for a high A player unless that player was extremely well regarded and used in another deal for something closer to major league ready. But if Santana is as good as some of you think, with the market as weak as it is, it's the ideal time to shop him. He's affordable, a good pitcher, and has an ideal length of contract left. This is the high point unless you think he can be a legit ace up to the trade deadline next year.
  13. TheLeviathan
    The list of players you offered as evidence, I'd have taken a slightly used peanut for each of them. Abad-like deals would have been more than welcome. But I agree, we're going to have to be flexible about the return we get. We need to think about value, not chase one position. And we may not find a deal for either, but we damn sure better be trying.
  14. TheLeviathan
    I really disagree with these video game type trade ideas. If we're going to deal either of these guys, chances are the deals will be as individuals. None of us know what will be out there for Santana or for Dozier. The only way the team will find out is to shop them. And I think we all agree, regardless of who is dealt or to where, that we want the team to get a good return. The recommendation to shop (and hopefully find a deal) for Santana assumes this as well. As you said, the odds of us turning in a contending rotation next season is highly improbable. So let's aim for a more probable date of 2018 and acquire as many assets for that as humanly possible.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I agree, it's not bogus to hold a position different from what myself, or Mike, or Vanimal are suggesting. I would argue those positions have less probability of being successful in the long run, but they are a valid position to hold. As you said, arguing against my stance to deal Ervin because "the prospect might turn out bad" is just a bogus argument. By that logic so is dealing Dozier, but that didn't stop Nick or anyone else from advocating that position. And, frankly, that argument should never stop anyone because it's always an assumed risk.
  16. TheLeviathan
    What makes it a bogus argument is that it can be applied to any position anyone takes. If "What if that doesn't work?" is a valid criticism, then we might as well fold this sucker. Nothing any one of us suggests, no matter how compelling our argument, can stand up to "what if it doesn't work?" That risk is always present in anything. The key is to try and do what is most probable. And, for all of us, hope the front office does the same.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Which, again, is not a valid argument. By that logic we should never do anything because everything is doomed to failure. It's the same bogus argument Nick was trotting out.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Keep him, make him your 6/7th inning guy.
  19. TheLeviathan
    And here I was foolishly clicking on this thread thinking I might have some other choice than the Orange Menace or Hillary. Depressing. I may or may not be further depressed by how strongly I agreed with the sentiments of someone whose username (in jest i'm sure) is associated with these guys.
  20. TheLeviathan
    If Polanco moves to 2B and we sign an all-glove SS, we are experiencing a double hit on the offense. Unless we get a guy with upside (Profar is certainly a good idea), we are likely taking a dip down in production from Escobar/Polanco/Nunez to whomever plays there next year. Dozier to Polanco is a dip too. Now there is reason to hope Buxton turns the CF production totally around and Kepler takes a step forward, but you're probably talking on the whole a net loss offensively. Not much of one, maybe even a push, but it's hard to say. I think the odds of us improving the 8-12 spots in our bullpen/rotation that need upgrading are highly improbable. Improving the middle infield and catching spots seem like the best places to focus our efforts. (And to focus on with trade targets)
  21. TheLeviathan
    After as many years as we have been bad, doesn't it reach a point where another miserable season isn't moving the needle much any more? At some point, the dwindling fan base reaches a low and I'd argue we've pretty much settled there already. What matters most is how quickly we get back to actual winning, not modest improvements that result in a team that still is never in contention. The quickest path to actually winning, and the most probable path, is to deal your best assets for more assets. Not double down on what is already not working.
  22. TheLeviathan
    I wouldn't call it stubborn, I'd call it probable. I'm arguing from the position of what is most probable and most looking towards the long term future and what will most probably help this team for the longest period of time. As you and mike agreed, part of why we're here is a lack of foresight into how a "here and now" approach has lasting ramifications. I'm suggesting we learn from those mistakes. Trading Santana and Dozier isn't going full rebuild. It's trading your two best assets, who have peak value, who are not a long term part of the organization, when it will help the most and for the most time. Your position is repeating many of the mistakes that got us here in the first place.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Chargois, Tonkin, Rogers, Duffey, Pressley and prayers. Lots of prayers.
  24. TheLeviathan
    The hope is to acquire at least two starters for 2018 and beyond in deals to move Santana and Dozier. Since I think the odds of those two players contributing past 2018 is next to nothing (or they are extended and their production slowly tails off and we'll rue not moving them), I'd rather aim to have those 2018 starters come from other teams via trade. Just consider the tradeoffs here. The only thing sacrificed in my plan is a handful of meaningless wins in 2017. What's sacrificed in not dealing Dozier and Santana are viable assets for the next 6 years. Of course it's predicated on our new GM taking advantage of their value and dealing them for a good return....but isn't that the assumption we'll make on all moves we suggest?
  25. TheLeviathan
    You're arguing that it's important we don't drop off from a 70 win team to a 65 win team. I say the difference is moot. Especially if 2018 is helped for it.
×
×
  • Create New...