Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    Sometimes. Sometimes the reverse is a bad idea - trade a valuable asset of the future for a possible present asset. The board is littered with bad ideas of the past like trading Berrios for Tulo. We've had this discussion before, so I won't belabor the point, but a good FO cannot be as short-sighted as you stump for. It's an untenable position. There has to be a balance of aggression for the present and attention to the stability of the future. Either way, I can't imagine you would actually argue, in good faith, that "FA is hard" is an excuse for asset acquisition.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Butti is fun already.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Also, to state it agian, the real flaw is believing Pressley or death. That's just an absurd stance. Yes, it's hard to acquire good players, but I'm pretty sure the other 29 teams hvane't given up on having a good bullpen because they don't have Pressley. Not sure why the Twins should be any different.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Let me get this straight, the counter to this argument is "FA is tough?" Somehow I don't believe you'd buy this argument if Falvey and Levine came out and said it about pursuing an upgrade in the offseason. Hell, I know you and Chief wouldn't accept that argument. You know how you land someone better than Parker? Offer more money. It ain't tough. And I'd be willing to bet that's not an argument you'd accept from any Pohlad pocket-protector, so it seems odd to employ it here. So I say bunkum to that. Acquiring players to make your team better is never easy. That's a lame excuse. And if you're being honest with yourself, you probably agree.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Cleveland.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Seems like a poor way to approach things. I thought Warren got quite a bit of fanfare, right in line with Rourke and Buttigieg. Harris and Booker less so.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Exactly right. As an example, I had advised Herrera and Allen for about 2 years/20M in the offseason. That's about what each of them got. In that scenario: For 40M we bought some pretty nice prospects, more team control over two relievers, and (so far this year) similar production to Pressley. We do not have to have Pressley this year ot have a good bullpen. I don't know how that bizarre notion came to be.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Also...we're in that weird lull between the fanfare of people announcing their bid and actual debates. If the women on stage get less time to debate, I'm 100% there. Right now? It's the nature of the game.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Why don't we see anything about Booker? Rourke fell off the map too. Give Buttigieg two weeks and he'll be O'Rourke'd too. Biden's name is out there because of his prominence. Sanders because he's the front runner. I think it's the simplest explanation and likely the correct one. What's the alternative? A grand, national conspiracy by right and left wing media to downplay women?
  10. TheLeviathan
    Isn't some of the reason Buttigieg is out there is because he's fresh? I don't see much of anything from Corey Booker either and I suspect it's the same reason as Klobuchar and Harris.....they aren't currently offering anything new or newsworthy. It's less about their gender and more that they are knowns with nothing new to say as of now.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I'm aware of the reasons. That doesn't mean the Republicans aren't using a valid process for underhanded purposes.
  12. TheLeviathan
    No, it can start from "the season was lost and we got a value offer that blew us away" They had ways to repair the bullpen for 2019. Pressley does not have to be part of a successful bullpen, not for here or anywhere else. This is why the earlier analogy does not fit, it presupposes it was Pressley or death. That notion is inherently flawed and it's causing a ripple down of other flawed arguments. One of the things smart teams do is buy low/sell high. The Twins could've sold high on Pressley and bought low several other ways (trade/FA) and come out ahead. They didn't, that's the problem.
  13. TheLeviathan
    There is one downside to the robo-umps.....so much of my life watching baseball has been consumed with former players talking about how they "just want the umpires to call it consistently" and about "feeling out the umpire's zone". Whatever will we do with all that dead air?
  14. TheLeviathan
    20-0. Just in the regular season. And then he'll awkwardly sexually harass someone on air and and collectively make the human race several degrees less intelligent with just a few minutes of air time. But definitely 20-0
  15. TheLeviathan
    What they'd do is focus on the contents of the report, that's the next phase regardless of the number of redactions. The party of limited government sure seems eager to use government power to restrict access to the public. Funny.
  16. TheLeviathan
    There is risk in all transactions. Pressly was no guarantee, certainly not to become the weapon Houston helped create. But ultimately it'll be a few years before we'll know if they made the right play. Though they certainly made their chances more remote by doing nothing this offseason.
  17. TheLeviathan
    The road schedule next year is rough. Seahawks, Chargers, Chiefs, Packers, Bears, and Cowboys.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Your post absolutely implies that. And even if It didnt, that observation is still meaningless as a difference. It would be no different than adjusting to a newly hired umpire. Which happens. And players adjust. Except this happens once and you never have to adjust again. Ever. So I'm not sure why your observation matter unless you mean it as a criticism. No one has to be cheated to recognize that improvement can be made.
  19. TheLeviathan
    It would've been a net positive too. We probably would have acquired a reliever with more control than Pressley (Like a three year deal to Kimbrel or someone of that ilk), got the quality deal from AZ, and all we had to do was spend money. The failure was this offseason and Chief - I was right there clamoring for it with you. And disappointed by the effort.
  20. TheLeviathan
    The problem is not Trump's fault. But here is where there is fault for Trump: when this problem first started to escalate he tried to use it to get him political points and a wall. Even though any wall we built would be completely non-impactful to this problem. So while I certainly wouldn't put much of any blame on him for the problem itself, he's done a pretty crappy job responding to the problem in his own right.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Probably would bring in a lot more customers if you leaned into that instead.....
  22. TheLeviathan
    You argued players would have to adjust to this new, uniform strike zone. Yeah, once. If that. The counter point, which is 100% spot on from h2o, is that players have to adjust to different zones within games sometimes, much less from game to game. And no matter what you want to argue "more consistent" means it is going to be less than the 100% the robo strike zone would be. Every day. Without fail. Every inning. To every batter. It shouldn't be controversial to say your point just doesn't have any merit. I don't know how many times I've heard a broadcaster say "You have to find out if the ump is going to give you that corner" As if the corner is theirs to give or not give. Or, if you're Tom Glavine, by sheer stubborness force an entire era of umpires to change their zone. I'll say it again - whatever consistency currently exists within the umpiring world will, with absolute certainty, be less than the robo-umpires. And since the robo umpires will be the same day in and day out, I don't know how there can be some huge headache of players adjusting. That's a terribly weak argument. This is one of the things that would, over a very short period of time, be eliminated out of baseball. Now, if your personal preference is to have less consistency, I won't tell you that you have to like that. I understand people like a certain degree of error involved. However, this argument is silly. This will not be a "problem" for batters. Certainly not any more of a problem than it is now with a much shorter, one-time learning curve.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I'm more than willing to say the odds of the trade working out are smaller for the Twins than the Astros. Maybe even significantly so. Impossible is unreasonable, however.
  24. TheLeviathan
    It was an analogy meant to justify that claim. It's a bad analogy for an unreasonable position.
  25. TheLeviathan
    Yes I would make that deal, but that doesn't mean the trade is a for sure loser. That means right now they've got the advantage. But the story is not told on that trade and won't be for awhile. You eat meals now and in a week. I don't know about you but I don't do my grocery shopping with only the immediate in mind. Nor should any GM sound of mind with a sports franchise. You balance the needs of the immediate and the long-term or you destroy both. The Twins had ways they could have addressed Pressley's absence this offseason. That's the failure.
×
×
  • Create New...