Jump to content
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
    Heres annother angle, moving Sano to the outfield effectively makes Rosario our best left handed power threat by a significant margin
  2. TheLeviathan
    Molly and Ryan being on different pages about the Sano move is interesting. Is it possible they plan for Buxton to be in the minors and an outfield of Sano-Rosario-Arcia? And yes, I'm cringing at that too.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I'm ok either way with Fien but I agree with this. I don't mind a tender to him on one condition: He's seen as one of the bottom guys in the pen and the team still plans to aggressively add better options.
  4. TheLeviathan
    As a general rule I hate to push a talented arm from the rotation to the bullpen until there is ample evidence he can't cut it as a starter. He should be one of the five in the rotation. We shouldn't demote him in favor of Milone for any reason. (Or Nolasco for that matter)
  5. TheLeviathan
    I think this bullpen can be alright right now, but it's thin. If they want to be good it's going to take at least one significant investment. And that should happen, there is plenty of money and some interesting options. Also, if I'm moving anyone to the pen, it's Milone.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I really like Lowe at 2/10, I'd pounce on that.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Milone to the pen solves a lot.
  8. TheLeviathan
    If this is an accurate portrayal of his comments, then I'm very irritated.
  9. TheLeviathan
    People wanted so badly to believe the good glimpses were the "real" Hicks, but by and large - it wasn't. I think we moved on at the right time. Maybe Aaron goes on to have a great career, but if I'm a betting man I prefer someone else takes that chance.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Clock issues and bad play calling in crunch time are not the same issues. But by all means Mike, point out what clock issues last year should have prepared them for Michigan? What I saw, and I say this having coached on a sideline for more than a few years now, is a guy who overthought things. He didn't do the simple thing to give himself 2-3 shots, he thought he had the perfect one play and didn't even worry about time. It was a bad play call. Not bad time management. (However thin that distinction is here)
  11. TheLeviathan
    Good for him, they have made two top 15 teams sweat in his first two weeks as coach. I think Mason said this on Barreiro and it's true: EVERY coach has messed up and blown wins with stupid decision making. Most coaches just get to do it in high school or DIII schools where it barely gets noticed. Claeys had the bad luck of it being on a huge national stage in his first game. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that is the end-all, be-all of his coaching acumen.
  12. TheLeviathan
    He's a good fielder who hits for power, those aren't enormously abundant.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Man there are some posters that are really tone deaf about how they come across. Sometimes it isn't the people reading into your posts, it's you doing a really poor job articulating your thoughts to create the illusion of a different position. I, for one, will be happy to never see Hicks go back on a ball again (or thrilled if we do it to the Yanks!) and he largely being overrated here. Not thrilled with the trade, I wanted them to pursue a true upgrade rather than just "youth" and I think that's the trap that hurt the Twins here. On the plus side, I think this might be an endorsement of Buxton making the club straight out of ST. At least I hope so.
  14. TheLeviathan
    That's not your call. Baseball GMs do all sorts of things that are hardly predictable or logical. They may see him as a 1B or as a rotation between DH and another position. You don't know that perception. You can't know it. Neither do I. All I'm suggesting is that his profile and contributions lend to a player that could inspire interest. And it should be explored. The Twins have good reasons to explore it, so I'm hoping they do.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Because a player like Plouffe can check a lot of boxes for a team. Including multiple positions.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I don't understand why anyone would be arguing then. If Plouffe is indeed valuable, then let's explore that value while it makes sense for a host of reasons. That's all anyone has ever said about it. If you can get approximate value in the form of a young player or a position of need for Plouffe in a trade, there a great many good reasons to do so. And things don't always work like "X teams need 3B and Y teams don't", we see all the time that teams find ways to make things work if what they need is more like "RH power hitting corner infielder" Many of you are intentionally limiting the market to make your point, when the truth is that it's hard to always tell what the market is for a player with some versatility and a clear skill set.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Look, it should be a given that we don't know what value is out there for certain, that should be an underlying assumption we all share because none of us, so far as I know, are eavesdropping on conversations. This is reminiscent of a Willingham where people argued he was both valuable to us and yet invaluable on the market. That may well be true, the problem is we pretty much know the Twins never even tried to shop him that first season when he was crushing in July. You can make a case that he has low value, but I think the 3B market, the fact he is a productive two way player, and the fact that you are getting two years of that player will make him an attractive asset. Ultimately, though, that's up to Ryan to find out.
  18. TheLeviathan
    A lot of that was name value and past success that Plouffe simply doesn't have.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Please, just stop making every Plouffe thread into a strawman. I think we all can agree if we can't get something tasty back for Plouffe we keep him. But his team control and the weak market make for a pretty opportune time to sell. Someone like Nick Tropeano might be a nice target.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I agree, it really shouldn't be part of the conversation. The reality is that the best way to make 2016, 2017, and on better is to replace Plouffe with Sano and leave DH to Park. That allows us to play a really excellent OF of some combination of Kepler/Buxton/Hicks/Rosario.
  21. TheLeviathan
    My impression is that the same people saying "he might not be that valuable" want to hand him 16M qualifying offers.
  22. TheLeviathan
    At the time Bourjos was seen as a fairly attractive asset. Let me make this clear for what appears to be the billionth time - no one is arguing Trevor Plouffe is going to land you Matt Harvey and Noah Syndergaard and a delicious pie on the trade market. No one. No one is saying that. No one. But whatever value he has is at it's height right now and moving him now gives the team the best chance to balance their roster given the young guys coming soon (OFs) and the young stud we have already at the same position. I don't know exactly what is out there for Plouffe, but the Twins should damn sure be exploring what it is in a FA market with garbage for 3B.
  23. TheLeviathan
    You're fine with paying Trevor Plouffe 16M? I don't have words. If I'm Trevor Plouffe I see roughly double whatever I'm likely to make on the market and I take that in a heartbeat. Any agent that recommended Trevor Plouffe decline a QO should be fired on the spot.
  24. TheLeviathan
    You're seriously going to extend a 31 year old Trevor Plouffe a 16m QO? Holy schnikes I have no response for that. You don't trade him because he's about to be a FA, you trade him because he'll be a 31 year old FA that has an immensely talented player behind him that plays the same position that is dirt cheap and has 5 years of control. Seriously though, a qualifying offer?
  25. TheLeviathan
    That is what I meant. Trading for two years of a player is always going to be more appealing than one.
×
×
  • Create New...