Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,788

  • 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
    Extending your relationship with Plouffe by a year doesn't change your standing in any way. You MIGHT save a little bit of money at the risk of feeling it's wasted at some later date. Are we so far removed from Blackburn or Joe Mays that we think these sorts of moves have no downside? I liked it with Span and even with Perkins, but it's not always a good idea.
  2. TheLeviathan
    This thread reflects our reality the last four years: a guy plays competently and we fall all over ourselves to hand them millions for half a decade. Let's let the career play out a bit and assess his value when we aren't awful.
  3. TheLeviathan
    They're rare because the union heavily pressures against them. I've tried, largely in vain, to get people to stop suggesting these because they just don't happen with regularity for a reason. Only in hockey and football is it accepted practice,in baseball and basketball it is taboo.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Except there can be serious consequences to not waiting. Dozier's offensive production has been very streaky and you run the risk in paying him huge money now that he becomes the Twins version of Allen Craig or many other guys who got paid too soon. There is just something about Dozier's game I don't trust Longterm.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I'd wait for two reasons 1) Make sure Dozier is consistent enough to warrant an investment and 2) Shorten the extension and/or buy out an extra year. I just want more data on what Dozier exactly is before I'd be comfortable giving him that much money.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I would argue that the coaching staff and general manager didn't push nearly enough for the guys with the talent to do that. I think there was a belief that you didn't need to have that kind of talent in order to be an effective pitcher. It was almost like the Twins were trying to target a market inefficiency but went too far. Furthermore, I don't think that strategy would've been employed without heavy influence from the field staff. So while Anderson's general philosophies were fine, the problem was that they went too far with it from both a team-building and coaching perspective.
  7. TheLeviathan
    I agree and that's why Anderson had to go. Somewhere along the way a sound philosophy became an offtrack dogma.
  8. TheLeviathan
    I don't think there is a dissonance. As pitchers you want to be ahead in the count and not walking people and as hitters you want to avoid swinging at pitches out of the zone. The problem is that the Twins' pitching philosophy became too overzealous and there wasn't enough "good" strikes and guys able to miss bats in the zone. "Pitch to contact" was all about enabling weak contact and staying ahead of hitters, something all great pitchers do. We just started to believe any old schmuck could accomplish that if they had "good control".
  9. TheLeviathan
    The key to changing the Twins mentality isn't to stop pounding the zone - Anderson was spot on with that strategy. But at some point you have to recognize that the best pitchers pound the zone and finish hitters themselves. We built rotations, targeted arms, and pushed players to become only half of that equation. I don't know where it went off course but hopefully a change sets it back on track again.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I also worry that at Rios' age those nagging injuries are more of the norm rather than something he can bounce back from.
  11. TheLeviathan
    +100
  12. TheLeviathan
    It's hard to argue a counterfactual, especially when you agree with the premise. i'm not opposed to rushing some kids, but many people are recommending that become the default way of filling positions. I'm not comfortable with that. And I'm certainly not ready yet to declare Santana and Vargas shining beacons of success with that philosophy. We got a ways to go on that one.
  13. TheLeviathan
    We should probably start by dropping the assumption that Santana is a known quantity. He is one of the most obvious regression candidates I can recall in quite some time. Before we declare Vargas and Santana as successes that warrant during that practice into a habit, I might suggest we give it a bit more time. The truth is that pretty much all teams avoiding rushing players because it harms development. Going into next year relying on a guy in Rosario who is not ready, coupled with Hicks who has proven to be as unready as any ballplayer I've seen in, coupled with Schafer's almost certain regression....sounds like one of the worst planned disasters since Battlefield Earth.
  14. TheLeviathan
    I could quibble with some points but this is a really nice article!
  15. TheLeviathan
    We can afford to not be unprepared at both. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Your plan means we have 4 completely unproven guys for 2 spots that are vital offensively and defensively for us. I saw what that looks like last year and I cannot fathom endorsing that again.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Schafer is fine as a plan for fourth outfielder and Rosario should certainly have a shot, but signing no one ensures we have to rely on a bunch of sketchy bets rather than taking a chance on Rasmus like we did Hughes. Wasn't 2014 enough of this same lesson about going into the season without plan Bs? Our CF situation was a disaster for this same line of thinking. I don't want that again, frankly it's unacceptable to go in that unprepared again.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Knocking Rasmus on past performance seems like a very strange take to have for someone campaigning for a Hicks/Schafer platoon. Just sayin'.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Based on their revenues, expiring or traded contracts, likely arby raises. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that this team has some significant budget room to work with.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Because: 1) Money isn't an issue and 2) Schafer's production last year doesn't exactly jive with everything else he's ever done at the big league level. Counting on those two as a platoon might as well come with a wish for another Sam Fuld to get cut around the middle of April.
  20. TheLeviathan
    A player like Rasmus can be moved if those other issues force us to open a spot for him. Buxton's timetable is completely up in the air and likely not a factor this season. Injuries happen. Rosario and Hicks shouldn't be banked on. We need more than one guy in our OF that we can look at and say "you deserve to walk in as a starter." Right now we have Arcia and he's an outfielder in name only.
  21. TheLeviathan
    If your scenario is "what if these four things all happen in the best way then we have a logjam" - I'd suggest that your optimism is clouding the view of what is needed. Good teams don't plan for everything going right.
  22. TheLeviathan
    I think some teams might be willing to go 3, I wonder if Rasmus is the one that will keep it at 1-2 years as a way to rebuild value.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Go for Rasmus - give him a 1 or 2 year deal and overpay in dollars to land the upside. He's not going to want a long-term deal right now so he fits perfectly with what we need.
  24. TheLeviathan
    I can appreciate the "Plan B for Santana" approach with Escobar. But I'd still shop him hard before I settled on that.
  25. TheLeviathan
    You get the sense from that Mauer quote that he is the type that doesn't even want to be coached. I really don't like that mentality from a guy that is far from a perfect baseball player.
×
×
  • Create New...