Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,800

  • 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
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Keep him, make him your 6/7th inning guy.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Chargois, Tonkin, Rogers, Duffey, Pressley and prayers. Lots of prayers.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. TheLeviathan
    If your response to my position that we should trade a guy is "what if it goes badly?" - how is that not an acceptable response to anything anyone says on these issues? Including yourself? Of course if we trade Ervin for nothing it's bad. Same if we trade Dozier for nothing. Does that undermine your suggestion to trade Dozier? No? Mine either. It's a bogus argument.
  13. TheLeviathan
    The false dilemma you keep trotting out is still that: false. We are not choosing between Ervin and Dean. As a general rule, no team should be "in a hurry" to make a deal. I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing "Take moldy cheese for Ervin! Anything!" Can we dispense with that nonsense in every thread? You know, where we paint people who want guys shopped or moved as intending to rid ourselves of the player no matter what? Trade suggestions are pretty much always driven by the idea that we want to get a solid return for a player who is at good value. I shouldn't have to clarify that notion every damn time I suggest a guy should be shopped. It'd be like me turning around every time you or Nick or someone else says "We should hang on to Ervin" and i counter with "Oh, so you want to have him starting games for us when he's 90! Pfff....so much for your opinion!" Just knock it off. Shop Dozier and Santana because it makes sense to right now and trade them if you get a solid return.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Ooooh, can I play this game? But if we play Polanco at 2B we'll have no choice but to sign Juan Castro and play him at short. Ouch. That really hurts your plan! I don't think the options are limited to "Either we have Ervin Santana or we have Pat Dean". Suggesting so is revealing to me about what's wrong with this argument. Look, no one is asking for Ervin Santana to be given away. But he should be shopped. With the market for starters as weak as it is and demand always being high, it makes sense to shop him. Hell, it's the exact same reasoning for shopping Dozier! The only difference is the perceived depth we have in Polanco, which is hardly an established fact. In either case we're accepting a step backward in 2017 to assemble more talent going forward. Exactly why Santana and Dozier should both be available for the right offer.
  15. TheLeviathan
    So, to be clear: Trade Dozier: not punting on 2017, reasonable course of action Trade Santana: We're lighting Target Field on fire and the Apocalypse is Nigh
  16. TheLeviathan
    I lost track of the "ifs" with a totally positive spin at about 7. So your "conceivable plan" is that everything good stays the same and 7-10 things all change for the better? There's a word for that: improbable. But it probably deserves some hyperbolic adjectives too. Then we probably picked the wrong person and we're screwed either way.
  17. TheLeviathan
    What is the conceivable path? A string of good fortunate? I don't consider that "conceivable" in any meaningful way. Unless it's also "conceivable" that I could buy a house with a pot of gold I get from an Irish fairy. Is it "not impossible"? Sure. It's also ridiculously improbable.
  18. TheLeviathan
    If we're talking flukey, 2015 was the fluke here and not a particularly compelling argument for your position. When there is next to nothing on the free agent market, little in the way of immediate reinforcements, and still some huge defensive question marks....I do call that next to impossible. I hope the new head honcho deals more with probabilities than "well, let's do this because it's not impossible that we could be right!" If we constantly look for "not impossible" solutions, we ignore the multitude of ways they could get worse or go stagnant. And it absolutely abandons hope of being significantly better in the near future. Some of you are plainly advocating that 2018 doesn't matter as long as we can turn this 60 win team into a 70 win team. I say screw it. 70 is just as bad as 60, either way you're losing and not going anywhere. And in you scenario, we held on to our two biggest assets for nothing. If I'm not going anywhere I'd rather lose 60 again with the hopes 2018 can bring 80+ wins with the right moves. After all, it's "not impossible" we could deal Santana and Dozier and win 100 games with the talent we get back. If that bogus argument is still in play.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Sometimes a step back is required to take two steps forward. As others have said, there is no conceivable path to turning this rotation into a playoff contender, so aim for 2018. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but no less necessary.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Santana is a fine pitcher, I like him, I appreciate what he brings, but I'm also not going to let some delusion about 2017 guide my decision making process. If we can deal Dozier and Santana and land at least one (if not two) major league ready young starters - we should do it. Santana's clock here is ticking and, like Dozier, this offseason is the ideal time to trade him. Too often lately we've let sentiment and false hope guide our decision making and that's one of the reasons our roster is a mess. We'll be continuing that trend if we go into next season thinking we need to keep Dozier and Ervin. Don't deal them for peanuts, but for the love of all that's holy - shop them!
  21. TheLeviathan
    I still hope Santana is dealt this offseason.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Poor Gotham, so much potential absolutely destroyed by poor writing and planning. I think television has gotten so good that I'm starting to really notice the difference in writing quality. There was a long time where I went more by the genres that entertained me, but now I seek out anything and everything so long as I can sense good writing chops at work.
  23. TheLeviathan
    At least with the Jon Benet stuff they are suggesting they are going to name a suspect using new technology. I could see that being interesting. OJ? Been there, done that. It was all over TV. Most people I talked to said it peaked in the first episode and went steadily down hill.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Coming full circle.... He was damn good in Fargo too!
  25. TheLeviathan
    That show took almost every single category! Granted, Fargo doesn't belong in that category either, but it should've smoked that series.
×
×
  • Create New...