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
    I agree with this paragraph completely, but the context of his release doesn't lend itself to the narrative that the Twins gave away a diamond. They couldn't trade him, he signed for less than his likely Arb. figure, and he made less money than middle relief guys and utility infielders. He had pretty poor value and all the context supports that. But it doesn't change that it was a mistake. Jake Arrieta had crappy value too and it doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake. So, to put it simply, you don't have to argue about the context to make your point about the mistake. The context isn't your friend and it's still a mistake. What was dumb about it was that they gave up a very high ceiling player that they jerked around for nothing. That's what makes it a mistake - they destroyed his value with their stubborn approach and failed to recognize his ceiling, then they compounded that by giving him away for nothing.
  2. TheLeviathan
    You're also assuming, that's what happens when you're trying to talk about something from over a decade ago that isn't public knowledge. That's a given. I guess I side with what makes more sense and the version that does not says that the team would ultimately kick him to the curb for nothing while sticking to high trade demands to the bitter end. I tend to think, thank you occam's razor, that the interest was minimal. Epstein's vague comments about "pretty good" prospects doesn't really change things. It also fits with Ortiz being given a contract roughly equal to what Denny Hocking was making. Or less than Scott Sauerbuck on his own team. If you contention was true, I'd imagine he could have claimed something much closer to 2M or more. But he didn't. Because he was a dumpster dive. Because he didn't have much value. Because the Twins horribly mismanaged him.
  3. TheLeviathan
    First, 650,000 is a 33% discount. That's not insignificant. Second, the team was willing to accept Morban for Ortiz (partly due to money reasons as well) - if Ortiz had any value at all around the league....you don't think someone was willing to toss them the equal of that? C'mon. Having someone over the barrel for financial and roster reasons is the perfect time to target a player if you think they have value. The Twins were literally willing to give him away (and did!) and couldn't find anyone willing to even toss them a bag of balls for him. I agree it was a bad decision at the time and it was another in a long line of examples of Ryan passing on a higher ceiling player, but Ortiz had very little value. He ended up being a smart dumpster dive, but still a dumpster dive. Why he was in the dumpster is 100% on the Twins.
  4. TheLeviathan
    It's not that he went unsigned for a long time, it's that there wasn't a fierce market for him. He was cut, sat around a month, and signed for 1M. I don't know what your point is - there was some huge market for him? That everyone (the same people who didn't want to trade for him) really wanted him but just couldn't get him? He then shared time with the husk of Jason Giambi for a couple months. Ortiz was an extremely smart gamble by Epstein because he saw that Ortiz's depressed value around the league was due to the Twins and their ridiculous approach with him. But he had significantly depressed value, that's just how it was.
  5. TheLeviathan
    No, we wont ultimately be in charge of the decisions. But if criticism is warranted and you deliberately do the opposite of that you invite scrutiny on the merits of your analysis.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I didn't realize being a decent person required a completely non-critical approach to dealing with people. I've been friends with people I supervised and colleagues with those I've been asked to help improve. I was never shy about being critical, even if those conversations were hard to have. But they're hard because they're necessary to change things. Hell, I'm married to my biggest critic and I still think she's a mighty fine person. The mentality that everything has to be duckies and bunnies to be constructive is totally misguided. I understand not wanting to burn bridges because it's counter-productive to your ability to gain insights from the team, but if we're going to try to make things around our favorite team better - than hurt feelings need to be a non-factor. We have to figure out how to get better at this, not worry about who goes home upset about it.
  7. TheLeviathan
    It's just a simple truth that he wasn't signed until the end of the offseason and then didn't even start until several months into the season. The power and talent were there, but he wasn't a hot commodity. But I blame the misuse of his talents for that by the Twins.
  8. TheLeviathan
    I agree with your premise, I'm trying to figure out how they are currently using it as well. And count me among the chorus that finds the "improvements" a dubious claim. Beautiful park, but not really improved on for this father who likes to bring his kid.
  9. TheLeviathan
    I'm not him, but a similar conversation happened on the Paul Allen show last week. I was stuck in a car with limited options, so while I was forced to listen to the drivel I heard him talking to Gleeman about not wanting to criticize individuals he feels a personal connection to. The problem with that (while totally understandable, by the way) is that it automatically makes your analysis far less useful and relevant. I don't want to read about what Bernie Sanders' policies would mean for the country from Ted Cruz's website. Likewise, I don't give a rip what his campaign manager says either. If you can't keep a objectivity for reasons that are understandable, that does hurt my view of your analysis. I'm curious if there is anyone out there that isn't worried about hurting St. Peter's feelings can tell me what he actually does. He seems like an affable, pleasant guy but also one that has a talent for saying baffling, idiotic things from time to time.
  10. TheLeviathan
    What, exactly, is his job and how has he excelled at it?
  11. TheLeviathan
    Yeah, no one was clamoring....because we so thoroughly bungled his talents that no one could see the diamond in the rough. It was a historic bungle due to a problem we still face - stubborn inflexibility about letting talents be themselves rather than encouraging who they are and what they can do.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Well said tobi, Buxton should stay where it's best for him - injuries on the big club be damned.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Here would be a few highlights for me: 1) More emphasis on modern analytics and an understanding of statistics. 2) Early picks on hitters only 3) Treat FA as either boom or bust - either go big or go dumpster diving. Stay out of the middle. 4) Use the trade deadline aggressively, don't be too attached to players if the right moves are there 5) Emphasize defense and fundamentals 6) Emphasize strikeouts for pitchers 7) Adjust player's positions and roles early on. Not at AAA or the MLB level. 8) More analysis of their own work, flexibility with outside ideas, and a willingness to move on from people and ideas when they fail 9) A genuine effort to be out in front of trends Just off the top of my head.
  14. TheLeviathan
    You counted on three guys better served to hit 6-7-8 to be your 2-3-5. I'd say that's part of the problem.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Right, you could argue we didn't have a single known quantity in the OF on our 40 man roster going into the season. Not one single player you could reliably count on as both a solid defender and offensive contributor. Or, if they had shown those qualities the previous year there were still huge red flags attached. But then, some of us have been crowing about the outfield disaster waiting to happen for about 6 months now.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I don't think you have to give a guy a shot by completely decimating the 40 roster of guys that play the same position. This is the second time we rolled with a very young CF and had virtually nothing in line to help should he struggle.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Something is definitely amiss in the whole process. But I think it all stems from an organizational philosophy that seems to have lost the idea of trusting young talent to struggle to sucess but also has ignored putting them in the best positions to succeed. We have too many infielders in the outfield and too many low ceiling veterans in the rotation. We just seem to think you can shuffle people around however you'd like and things just work out. Time to clean house.
  18. TheLeviathan
    I'm with spycake, this plan is the worst of both worlds. If we play the vets in hopes of trade value we have three possible outcomes: 1) They stink and we wasted at-bats and innings on guys that are not part of the solution only to be bad anyway and get nothing out of them in deals. 2) They're decent to pretty good and we get lulled into a false sense of security that these players are actually part of the future and dismiss the first two months as a fluke and don't trade any of them. 3) They're pretty good but we believe we should trade them, leaving that option in the hands of a notorious non-dealer at the deadline. Meaning few, if any, actually get traded to make room for the kids. I simply don't see how this plan can be spun positively.
  19. TheLeviathan
    We don't have a better option. Though, in our trades this year, I hope it's a position highly prioritized.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Why would you deal Arcia for pennies on the dollar? This is the team this team needs to roll with by Aug 1: Kepler LF Polanco SS Mauer 1B Sano 3B Park DH Arcia RF 2B Dozier C Murphy (or player traded for) CF Buxton The guys that need to move are Plouffe and at least two of the starters. Arcia should not be on that list. The guy just turned 25 and is figuring it out. Rosario will hvae to earn some time back, but ideally our 4th OF in this situation is a right-handed stick.
  21. TheLeviathan
    http://surlybrewing.com/content/uploads//2014/10/surly-dumpster-fire-feature-465x622.png
  22. TheLeviathan
    I hear a cow will get you magic beans, but that's as serious as I can entertain with this.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I think the Cubs are demonstrating how you have to have a really specific plan for what you like and what you don't and build with that. I think Terry comes from an era where you just assembled assets and tried to fit them as you go. Epstien has brilliantly targeted hitters with high picks and high value trades because he knows that scouting their future impact is generally more reliable. (Plus they are less likely to have injury issues and longer careers) He's supplemented the pitching staff with buy-low moves and free agent dollars. That basic framework is so easy to replicate. Or, hell, do something else smart for all I care - but time for a total change in organizational framework. Gut the whole front office.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Oh good god I could actually see this happening. Thanks for the nightmares buddy.
  25. TheLeviathan
    Firing Ryan and replacing him with Anthony would be utterly pointless. I'm sure Rob Anthony is a fine person, but he'd be a god awful replacement choice. No one should be fine with this organizations nepotism any more.
×
×
  • Create New...