Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,814

  • 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
    Correct. Twinsdaily needs an article explaining what a "floor" is, this mistake is made a lot.
  2. TheLeviathan
    I think sitting here and talking about "going forward" is intentionally moving the goalposts. We're charting them for 2016 and, at least on paper, they have a stronger roster. But that's arguably been the case a lot and the performance on the field doesn't match up.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Except, by definition, you probably didn't win "as many as possible" if you lost. Almost certainly you could have traded more or spent more money to have achieved that end. But I might suggest a more rational idea is to suggest that there be some nuance. You know, like the kind not granted to those willing to perhaps lose a few games in the short term to help invest in the development of the long term.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Right but then keep the responses in context. The argument being advanced by some is "win at all costs", I'm not sure how you can go by that mantra and consider anything short of a WS title a "success". To me, those things go hand in hand if you're truly going to pound that stance of "win, baby, win".
  5. TheLeviathan
    No, but you've liked the posts about "always win as much as humanly possible or else...." If you're going to endorse that sort of thing, I'm not sure how you can prize anything short of a WS.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Well, you also can't have it both ways. If you don't make any allowance for the GM but "win, baby, win"....then isn't that the only way to judge a GM is by if they win the World Series? It's part of the problem if there isn't much nuance to how you judge the efforts being made.
  7. TheLeviathan
    No, what I may be confusing you with is someone that says "development be damned, if it hurts Buxton long-term I don't care, as long as I get one more 2016 win" Because that is a natural consequence of what you're advocating. There are tradeoffs for forcing your hand too soon and finding that balance is important. If "win now, at all costs" is the mantra, you are casting off concern for the negative consequences (meager or substantial) for whatever (meager or substantial) rewards you might incur. I prefer to mitigate the negative consequences while maximizing the overall rewards. So I don't want to "win now at all costs". I prefer to "win as much as I can, without hurting myself in the future". That can mean different things to different people and the job of Ryan is to establish what we "can" do and what would hurt in the future. And certainly the team could be doing more to help win now and not hurt the future. But at some point you need to let your Kyle Gibsons flounder/adjust a bit so they can be ready to contribute later. Or let your Trevor Plouffes settle in where they can contribute. That comes with the very likely result of losing some immediate success for the investment in future contributions. And you can't just get out of that need to invest in players to adjust.
  8. TheLeviathan
    This sounds good as a bumper sticker, but some elements of reality disagree. Sometimes, in the maturation from losing to winning, you accept a slightly lesser return immediately for a higher return in the near future. Most young players go through a rough patch early and need to adjust to the advanced talent of the big league level. The only way to make that adjustment is to give them the opportunity. The consequence of that is sometimes a lesser performance than if you went with some vanilla, no upside player that at least gives you a higher floor than the learning young player. But it's part of the process and has to be accepted if you want to really start winning. What you're advising is putting lipstick on a pig so you can say you are "winning" more than if you were playing the kids, whereas I'd rather swing for the fences and let the talent adjust for bigger and better things than a pretty pig. In other words, I want to start to really win and sometimes that requires a small step backward first.
  9. TheLeviathan
    It's not our "infielders in the outfield" approach that we have all but slapped a trademark "Twins Way" on...but I like it. Revolutionary. It's clear we don't give a hoot about outfield defense so let's just go all-in on that puppy.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I'm fine with taking a flyer on a guy, I just can't imagine a scenario in which it makes sense for him to come north.
  11. TheLeviathan
    True, there is a chance it was a ploy, I just find it unlikely given the totality of the evidence.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I guess I just doubt that timeline. If you were still open to moving Plouffe I think moving Sano to the OF was premature. I mean, they moved him in the first week of November. Lawrie wasn't traded until December. I believe they mean what they said - Plouffe was never on the market. It's not like Ryan to be this adamant and then working behind the scenes to do the opposite.
  13. TheLeviathan
    I firmly believe we'll see Sano-Rosario-Arcia in the OF if the Sano to the OF talk is legit.
  14. TheLeviathan
    You should not do that, trust me.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Relief pitchers are some of the most rigid and fragile employees in the world is what I've learned from the last few days. I understand having a role helps you prepare, but these roles aren't all that radically different. It'd be nice to start breaking this mentality in the minors so that a bullpen can be maximized to the fullest.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I wish we would've gotten in on relievers that weren't Bastardo. Part of the reason we have to contemplate signing a lemon is that we didn't do anything sooner.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I agree, don't give Plouffe up for nothing. But it seems to me it was never even explored or an option even on the table. Like it or not, his presence is part of the outfield problem.
  18. TheLeviathan
    The issue with my idea is that I think it's a pipedream that Plouffe gets traded. If Sano is in the outfield we end up with either a really crap option in CF (Rosario) or Arcia is on the outside looking in again. But something like Fowler-Dozier-Mauer-Sano-Arcia-Park-Rosario-Murphy-Escobar looks a lot better to me than swapping Fowler for Plouffe and having some hideous outfield configuration.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Look, Santana and Arcia could bounce back - I'm actually all-in on giving Arcia that chance in fact. But you can't play Arcia and Sano in the outfield without trading a lot of defense for the hope of offense. Even more so if Buxton is better left to develop in AAA and you are playing either Sano-Santana-Arcia or Sano-Rosario-Arcia. If that doesn't make you cringe....well then I don't know what to tell you. Next, you don't have to trade anything but money for Fowler. Something the Twins still have plenty of, by the way. Adding him and trading Plouffe is a wash offensively, but Fowler would be a legit top of the order hitter and would allow the team to play Sano at third and leave the other corner spot for Arcia. Or, if Buxton is ready, then Fowler can play RF for a few months. But planning on Buxton, Sano, Arcia, Rosario, and Santana as the outfield looks like a disaster waiting to happen if there is any kind of stumble. And, as a group, is likely to be subpar defensively.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I fear the choices we make in March are going to all but assure that by July we are sellers. While depth is nice to have, it's better to actually field the best possible lineup you can from the get go. This team only contended because of how it played the first two months, putting a group of outfielders like Sano-Rosario-Arcia could be an outright disaster. And if they keep Buxton for defense alone then you are altering what you think is best for him as a hitter because of the corner you backed yourself into over the winter. Trade Plouffe and go sign Fowler to a one year deal. Bring up Buxton when he's ready and then move Fowler to the corner. Or call up Kepler. Or trade Fowler. Do whatever, but give yourself some real options rather than this cobbled mess.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I don't really have an opinion apart from the facts show that the team has had a pretty good bullpen. So I conclude they've had a pretty good bullpen. If you choose to look away from those facts, that's fine. That's your call. The contention that Ryan is bad at fielding a bullpen is demonstrably false. So, yeah, I guess I just side with the demonstrably true part. You take whatever stance you want. The stance, by the way, that they've been historically pretty good at it does not entail that they always make the right decisions or are currently making the right decisions, but if you're going to side with the meme that the team hasn't been very good at it and this is a continuation of that failure - know that it's a demonstrably false meme. And the best part? You can accept that Ryan has been pretty good and still falling short recently. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Since 1994 the team is 4th in RE24, so let's just stop. Are you so convinced of your narrative that facts be damned? Look, the truth is that over the large majority of Ryan's time the team has had a pretty good bullpen. Yeah, they could have and should have done more last year. I have no problems criticizing Ryan when it's fair. The fact that you continue to pound a point that is demonstrably false or overstated may show you don't have much interest in the fairness part. Otherwise you'd accept the facts and move on.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I'll be more critical of his bullpen management going forward as we mount up a contending effort for sure. I'm not sure I put a lot of stock in the last few years any more than I put stock into the Stahoviak days. This offseason has been a disappointment as far as the bullpen goes, I'm hoping the results don't reflect the effort. Historically speaking, however, his results have been quite good.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Made a small error in my sorting, they were 4th best in FIP, 6th in xFIP. As for inherited runners, from 2003-2010 the team lead all of baseball in RE24, which fangraphs like to think is the best model for measuring this sort of thing. Or one of the best. So yeah, every measure. Sorry the facts don't fit the narrative.
  25. TheLeviathan
    From 2003-2010 the Twins had the 5th best xFIP in all of baseball. 2nd best in FIP. 8th best in WAR. So you go ahead and pick the stat, tell me which one is the make or break and I'm almost guaranteeing you it will still suggest the Twins had some pretty damn good bullpens.
×
×
  • Create New...