TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,582 -
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
-
Nope, but as a kid who read hundreds of "Choose your own Adventures" as an 8 year old.....I will definitely be watching this. Also....the wife and I dropped the kids with the grandparents and she chose "Holmes and Watson" and let me tell you...disaster isn't even adequate. It was the worst movie I've ever paid money to watch.
-
Here's the realization that helped me: Nick has baked a lot of his personal projections for the 2019 season into these rankings. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just important not to try and view this as a snapshot of the present. -
When I hear the word "asset" I think present value matters, but long-term value is even more important. Assets are also something you can move, so trade value matters quite a bit too. Mine would look something like this: 1. Berrios 2. Lewis 3. Kirloff 4. Buxton 5. Sano 6. Polanco 7. Graterol 8. Romero 9. Rosario 10. Kepler 11. Garver 12. Gibson 13. Gordon 14. Gonsalves 15. Rogers 16. Javier 17. May 18. Larnoch 19. Thorpe 20. Pineda Buxton's year of control breaks his tie with Sano. Like it or not, short and long term this franchise is tied at the hip to these two. At least for now. Gibson slightly over Gordon and Gonsalves because I still think he could fetch a better prospect for him than either of those two. Gordon and Gonsalves are likely to be call-ups this year and have decent trade value, so they outweigh Javier and some of the bullpen guys. Also editing this in ...and I think this is important: I tried to do as little projecting as possible. That's one of my concerns with the other lists. This is more of a snapshot of "Where are they right now". Right now, the Twins would only get buy low offers on Sano and Buxton. People might feel like one or the other has a future higher on this asset list. I tried to avoid doing that and only take stock of them as they are right now for value to this franchise.
- 51 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- taylor rogers
- max kepler
- (and 3 more)
-
You're trying to compare AAA and MLB results on equal footing. That's not a fair comparison. And when the footing is equal, you've gone so far as to call Buxton's 900ish OPS "raking" in AAA and Sano's 900ish OPS in AAA as "underwhelming". Slice it any way you want, if that's your evidence, it's pretty clear you're using it in a very unjustified way. The bias there is glaring. And, to date, you've tried to argue your assessment is also based on future value as well as present value, to which the Twins are also staking a lot of their success on Miguel Sano. Plan B for Sano is not apparent and depth at the position should weigh into the player's value IMO. Especially given how highly your list seems to be about Jake Cave. Yes, Buxton's option year counts in his favor, but Cave vs. ???? should count heavily for Sano too.
-
I acknowledged that. But they are not basically opposites - their problem is the same: We are past 1,000 ABs and neither has established themselves as a core contributor. And the primary reason for both is disappointing offensive performances relative to expectations. Who you choose to be optimistic about is totally up to you. But if either of them do attain something closer to their expectations, they become immensely valuable to this club. If they don't, they become immensely harmful. And there are worrisome red flags for both. And it's a bit of an unfair (ridiculous really) argument to point to Buxton kicking ass in AAA versus Sano in MLB. I mean, hell, if Sano had rested his legs the rest of the season he walked out of AAA with an .895 OPS too. I don't hear much crowing about that. (With good reason, it's silly) In fact, Nick called his .895 "underwhelming" yet has no problem basking in Buxton's almost identical production. There is no Eddie Escobar to mask Sano's absence this year. If he can't man 3B, it will hurt. There is no Jake Cave lying in wait.
-
This makes a lot more sense honestly. I appreciate the time you put into this. I'd even bet Nick's would look a bit more like this given hindsight.
-
I agree the offensive line has to be better, but the defense can't have this much investment and come up this short when we really need them. Sometimes we need them to be the boot on someone's throat and too often for my liking they just aren't that team. I appreciate the development Zimmer has done with Hunter, Kendricks, Alexander, Sendejo, Rhodes, etc. I really do. But the blame for this season isn't all on the offense either. The defense lost us plenty of games too and as long as that's Zimmer's baby, he gets the bulk of the blame. (I've also been worried that every time he meddles in the offense it's generally for the worse)
-
And you could swap the name Buxton for Sano and this paragraph still stands. At this point your only real defense is your subjective feelings. Which is fine, but the difference isn't very evidence based.
-
This was going to be my first argument against Nick's inevitable Buxton argument. Sano's value should be higher for this reason. We are starting Adrianza if he goes down. That drop off is far steeper.
- 80 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- stephen gonsalves
- miguel sano
- (and 3 more)
-
The Bears rolled out a vanilla gameplay in a must win game and moved the ball at will on the Vikings. Injuries are not a valid excuse. This defense also got torched by the Eagles in the championship and numerous times this season. Their ranking matters, but they never felt or acted dominant. There is too much talent and money invested on that side of the ball to be anything less than dominant.
-
And I don't think the counter point about Cruz is at all minimized by that point.
-
Schur was also Ken Tremendous on the Fire Joe Morgan blog. He's had a wildly awesome career. My degree in philosophy makes me nerd out about the show. I wish it were a tad funnier but I enjoy it. Parks and Rec is probably my second favorite sitcom all time behind the early years of the Simpsons. So, for me, it's no shame not to be that good.
-
To add to this excellent post...I don't think power is the only tool that could be fit into this sentence. Put in contact, speed, defense, or any pitching attribute and I think it fits. Analytics have stopped teams from paying for what they don't think can be repeated. Regardless of the tool.
- 80 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- stephen gonsalves
- miguel sano
- (and 3 more)
-
It's going to be hard to explain having Sano at 14 and Buxton top 5. IMO - they should be right next to each other wherever they are in the rankings. They are basically the same argument.
- 51 replies
-
- 7
-
-
- taylor rogers
- max kepler
- (and 3 more)
-
Correct, I think teams are hesitant to spend big on what they feel are unsustainable numbers. For Cruz, his age will eventually be a factor and it's why teams were hesitant. For Cron and LoMo it was because they were viewed as flashes in the pan. I think the Cruz signing was a good one. I think we can count on him to be productive, but we should also remember that players his age do not maintain their skills forever. When they go south, they'll go south hard. It shouldn't shock anyone if that happens this year, it's why the option year was so wise.
-
Rankings-wise they've been ok, but there is an elite amount of talent on this roster. The defense nearly choked that Saints game away last year. It was routinely abused by other top teams. The Philly game was a disaster and it seems like good offenses can roll this defense. Given the talent, I'd say he underperformed. And when that's the case, yeah, I blame the coach and not the GM.
-
Well, is it that or is it league-wide doubt about their ability to continue that production? Granted LoMo and Cruz would have doubts for different reasons, but same problem I think.
-
Do you think he's maximized the talent on defense though? My answer would be a definite no.
-
The cast of Parks and Rec was special, I don't know if there has ever been a better ensemble than that show produced. Seinfeld worked well with four, but Parks and Rec. had a dozen characters that fit perfectly. We binged the first two seasons of the Good Place this weekend. I like the Good Place, the premise is really interesting and the show has transformed itself successfully twice. It's not nearly as laugh out loud funny as Parks and Rec, but I dig it. (Tahani's bit is getting old though, she's a bit too abrasive. Not unlike Amy Poehler was the first season of Parks)
-
It is, but I find it hard sometimes to figure out how the bonuses are paid out. According to Sportrac, Rhodes will cost the team 7.2M next year if traded, then 4.8 and 2.4 the next two years. His 2019 cap hit is 13.4. So if you trade him you save 6.2M in the short-term, but you'll lose cap space the next two years on him as well. I think you might actually fetch more for Waynes and without the cap implications.
-
My point was only that counting on top guard talent to last past the first is not a given. Last year many of them went higher than expected. Hernandez, from what I've read, was slightly above average. Which would absolutely be a huge improvement from what we got. I would like two of their top 4 picks to go to OL. Drafting two guards to start and bring back Easton or someone comparable.
-
They take the full cap hit, but we would get a dead cap hit. Rhodes makes 13M, if we trade or cut him we absorb a hit for doing so. I believe (based on Sportrac) that the hit would be about 6M. So while we would save 7M dealing Rhodes, we'd still likely have to give Waynes an extension that may eat some of that anyway. That hit may be beyond this year as well, so it may not be a one time consequence. But I'm not 100% certain on those issues.
-
I just can't see the team retaining him. If they dealt Rhodes, you'd be taking a 6M cap hit for several seasons. Practically speaking,you can't do that.
-
Rhodes would be more difficult due to the cap hit. There would be none with Waynes.
-
With Rhodes,Hughes, Alexander, and Hill....would dealing Waynes make sense? Might net a nice draft pick for him.
