Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. TheLeviathan
    You're conflating two different issues. And not answering the question. I don't think it's extreme at all to hold them to account on the integrity of the game. Especially since they, you know, instituted the practice in the first place for expressly that purpose. All I'm suggesting is it seems like a pretty easy fix to continue to do that and invest into it so players can't feel picked on. Or, just be open about picking on them. Whatever, just not this. Eventually it'll get fixed one way or the other as more players gripe publicly.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Good thing no extreme parameters are being set, so your concern is unwarranted. I'm still genuinely curious if anyone can tell me what harm (other than money) there would be an expanding the program. Just increase the frequency and guarantee that all players will have a minimum number of test during the year. They may have more but they will have at least a certain number. What would that cost other than money?
  3. TheLeviathan
    That might be completely perception bias But I don't know. I know there are plenty of other places in which it is said that screenings are random, but they really aren't.(see: TSA) And I don't even care if they are random or not, but if the only obstacle to assuring players that the system is fair is money, than i don't know why we are protecting the league's pocketbook. Seems like a small price to ensure integrity and fairness.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Firstly I stand on firm ground having suspicions about how seriously major-league baseball cares about performance enhancers. We know they turned a blind eye for long periods of time in the past so let’s not give them some kind of nobility on this issue. And we certainly know the players don’t deserve any nobility. Second the fallacy is not a fallacy because your analogy doesn’t fit. There are many extra ramifications to invasion of privacy of your information that don’t exist here. This is simply about drug testing and we’re talking about doing the same thing that is already been approved (by all) just with more frequency and consistency in order to remove any suspicions of malfeasance. This is not a slippery slope into invasion of privacy as your analogy indicates, it’s simply expanding the program to make it appear (or be) less directed.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I'm not justifying Gomez's accusation, I think it's probably baseless. But you open yourself up to these sorts of things with this system. If the frequency was much, much higher for everyone....what's the downside? I know cost is a concern, but it shouldn't be for MLB. Is that the only one?
  6. TheLeviathan
    I guess I don't consider "cost efficiency" an issue. If the league and the players actually care about this issue that is. Both express publicly that they do, so I guess I don't see the concerns you raise as being valid. Unless (and I admit this is certainly possible) both sides are perfectly content to seem like they care and institute a system that doesn't actually do much.
  7. TheLeviathan
    I'm rooting for Ovechkin, but I love the atmosphere Vegas is creating there. Great to see a new market embrace hockey.
  8. TheLeviathan
    It would seem to me, that if you're going to do it at all, that you should do it in the most fair, consistent, and worthwhile way you can. If increasing the frequency accomplishes that, it should be worth it to the league. Now, whether the union accepts that or not I don't know, but the current system asks for this kind of controversy. And there are absolutely ways to avoid it if the league is willing to pursue them.
  9. TheLeviathan
    I think the point is to make it less randomly unfair/inconsistent. (Or at least seem that way to players) I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap and keep the testing effective.
  10. TheLeviathan
    It's one thing to say "we have to change something, sorry Molly" and literally have threads where we blame him for not playing a catcher that can't catch, Buxton for not hitting, and probably global warming too. (Trying to catch up on the forum. I'm sure it's there though) As a board, there is almost no credibility in our criticism of him. He deserves some, but good lord. The issues with Buxton are not easily blamed on the manager. Especially since, as of last September, Molitor would have been getting the credit for it then. But I don't recall many threads giving him credit.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Glad they got losing over quickly tonight!
  12. TheLeviathan
    I think something more than "totally random" is probably a good idea. "Totally random" lends itself to this sort of controversy by perception bias. I don't know what the perfect system is, but something along the lines of everyone being tested once a month, at a random time, seems like a good idea to me.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Too much to lose, not enough to gain. Also, I’m glad we have continued our thread streak of everything is Molitor’s fault. Soon to come: Molly sets the beer prices and created cancer.
  14. TheLeviathan
    It's not the Twins....but worthy I think. I think I said "Holy *@^*" about twelve times during this article.
  15. TheLeviathan
    He's not a solution, but I see the appeal in having him around. He has hit AAA pitching fairly well and struggled with MLB pitching....so he might be that typical Quad-A guy. But with speed, versatile defensive ability, and he hits right handed....it's worth a gamble I guess. If you aren't willing to call up Gordon that is.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Eh, baseball just doesn't work that way. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. If we are sellers, let's hope the guys we'd be selling start giving us reasons to be optimistic about the return. Right now, I'm not sure a sell-off would garner much.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Is there any value to freeing him up off the 40 man or anything of that nature?
  18. TheLeviathan
    Your mother never warned you about nothing being free? I'm all for upgrades, but Hanley Ramirez might be a toxic personality who isn't all that better with the bat, is old, and a crap defender. I'd much rather call up prospects. Or have gambled on Jose Bautista last week. Or just about any number of things other than Hanley Ramirez.
  19. TheLeviathan
    I would like to see them pursue upgrades. I'm a big fan of pushing in on Realmuto. I'd call about Sisco and Susac as possible catching gambles over Wilson if Realmuto isn't possible. (And they have former top prospect cred) I'd call about Danny Valencia. I'd call about Brad Miller. Hanley Ramirez? Seems like something you'll regret by July 1st.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I believe wRC+ is the best measure and by that measure, he is not actually better.
  21. TheLeviathan
    At best he's been slightly better. His wRC+ has been worse and he's been a worse fielder....as hard as that is to believe. He's also older, less versatile, and been rumored to be a cancer in the clubhouse for years.
  22. TheLeviathan
    I think there are some valid concerns on parenting today. There are a lot of parenting fads out there (attachment parenting and the like) that promote some really bizarre ideas. Parents are the ones that want everyone to get an A and stand up for an award for participation. Too many kids run the show at home too. Kids need guidance about the world. Of course, part of the problem, is that many of their guides are pretty ill-equipped for the task. I'm with you on the older generation though. I always look at it this way - all of these terrible parents had parents didn't they? Maybe the problems started there.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I just tuned in.... Gordon Beckham is still a thing? What?
  24. TheLeviathan
    Or maybe we could, I don't know, use the last 2-3 years. Shall we? Keeping in mind that Hanley is already behind on age and defense.
  25. TheLeviathan
    I didn't realize both guys started their career in 2018. The more you know! Shame we don't have more data though.
×
×
  • Create New...