Jump to content
The 2026 MLB Draft starts in two days, click here to get up to speed on the weekend's action with our draft primer! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,007

  • 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
    For the Twins I don't think it would look like that. I know you're trying to match up prospect ratings the best you can, but it's hard to set up those same circumstances. If the general point is - do you want him to trade a handful of the best prospects for a high end arm and some extra parts - the answer is yes. If he's timing it to coincide with a bust out of the young players. I think the 2017 offseason may be the ideal time for that if Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Polanco, etc. are rolling along. I liked the Myers deal at the time for KC. He was betting on his young players and he bet correctly.
  2. TheLeviathan
    It's not that simple because Moore had added someone like Cain previously that made Myers more expendable. (Not to mention that Myers was a bit miscast - not good enough to be a CF defensively and not elite enough offensively to be a corner OF) So to answer your question - yes I would. Not this coming offseason, but perhaps the next. But only if it's for a good prospect that is blocked.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I think the lesson to be learned here is - there is a team that prizes defense in your own division, pretty much using your own model, and is succeeding. We could make up a lot of ground if we just stopped believing anyone can play the OF whenever we decide to shove them out there. Let's just start there and work our way up.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Honestly, I enjoy your commentary but it's becoming really hard to understand what you're saying. I literally have no clue what the hell this means.
  5. TheLeviathan
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Generating a list of shaky reasons to call it a chicken doesn't make it a chicken.
  6. TheLeviathan
    That's what your entire post was.
  7. TheLeviathan
    What might have changed is his exposure to what worked, where to find it, and other factors that made it more effective. But I have no delusions that the Twins had juicers too. I believe the biggest boost he got going to Boston was freedom to be himself as a hitter.
  8. TheLeviathan
    I'm sure they knew each other. I also don't really care since it's not important. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that being teammates day in and day out may substantially change a relationship. We'll never know what he was doing, when he was doing it, or how much Boston influenced that. What we know is that he was, in fact, on drugs that would've qualified for a PED test failure in 2003.
  9. TheLeviathan
    The point was flukey play coinciding along with known users is about as damning as you can find without administering the tests yourself. We KNOW Ortiz was on what would eventually be PEDs in 2003, so I'm not sure what the mystery is. There's a better than decent chance that expanded with his introduction to Manny Ramirez.
  10. TheLeviathan
    We know that Manny and Ortiz were taking things that would later be banned by the sport in 2003 and that Manny continued to take them. Giambi was taking them. Millar, Muehler, Varitek, and Nixon had career home run hitting years. Damon's power numbers spiked the next year. Mark freaking Bellhorn in 2004. I largely think that team was the result of some rampant PED use, but it's speculation purely.
  11. TheLeviathan
    It's impossible to know, it's also just really alarming the kinds of career years those Boston teams had in those eras. Millar, Muehller, Nixon, etc. - either it's the most amazing collection of career years at once or something fishy. Since we know several guys from that team were caught later, my money is on fishy. But it's purely speculation.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I think Fenway helped him some, but I think the rampant cheating on those Boston teams at the time may have helped him a lot. Some of the stats on that team indicate it was a damn pharmacy in that clubhouse.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. TheLeviathan
    What, exactly, is his job and how has he excelled at it?
  23. 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.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Well said tobi, Buxton should stay where it's best for him - injuries on the big club be damned.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...