Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,583

  • 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
    I wonder, if that had happened, how that would have changed China. I have to imagine it would've been profoundly different.
  2. TheLeviathan
    This also assumes health which gets rolled into the luck equation. And it assumes Berrios and May are starters, which I hope is true. The bullpen and the defense might have been under-discussed so far too.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I suggest you search 1:1 on the forum. The bludgeoning is happening in the other direction. We can't even get to your interesting questions because the very notion that they were is (supposedly) debunked by news reports. I too find the discussion about Calhoun/Stewart/Buehler/Lux/Whomever to be more interesting. But we can't have that discussion without someone chiming in that we were offered nothing but "junk".
  4. TheLeviathan
    Glad to hear it, but I also don't hear you constantly framing this as 1:1. Those that are, I'd like to know why that framing persists when every report runs counter to it.
  5. TheLeviathan
    What do you do about the pitching? And I'd like to know what the similar deals are too, that'd help.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Well the list of people that have taken you to task for you interpretations includes me, mike, spycake, jimmer, and biggentleben among several others. And all of us have a range of opinions on the matter. You have yet to provide a "similar trade". What trades do you think you've presented that are similar? (Also note you completely ignored the first part. I guess magic may not be so far off afterall....)
  7. TheLeviathan
    Well, if not magic...what? I've asked you no less than three times and you refuse to answer that. So, what would you like me to assume since you won't trade, you know we can't pay for it (it's not even there to pay for), so....what? I've heard mike ask you about 10 times too and you slink away from the conversation. And your summary is based on completely debunked examples. You have yet to provide any examples that approximate Dozier. You have offered package deals (which was not what we were offering) or Lucroy. That's the best you've managed to verify your stance. Those have been thoroughly debunked. So if you're view is going to be a summary of things that don't add up, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put much stock in it.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Right, this team's youth makes the possible outcomes for this season pretty broad. But it's going to have to find some pitching somehow for me to approach 80 wins.
  9. TheLeviathan
    I would recommend the Pioneer Press article Brock. Knapp had interesting comments about DeLeon's makeup, he was also quite bullish. At the end of the day the question with DeLeon is how is he maintaining a K rate that successful in the minors with that velocity and is it projectable? That would take some in depth scouting as far as his deception, his changeup, or whatever it is he's using to have that sustained success. That's a rather nuanced question none of us probably have the answer for.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I could see 100 losses, but I think more likely it's in the 90ish range.
  11. TheLeviathan
    That final analogy is spectacular. We have a TJ Clemmings rotation and we're worried about our backup QB.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I just don't think you have much basis to take "junk" to mean literally "nothing.
  13. TheLeviathan
    "junk" is a relative term. If Knapp is such a good source, he also states anything short of Bellinger and DeLeon is not enough value. Whose to say "junk" isn't relative to Bellinger? It's speculation at that point. But 1:1? Nah, that isn't speculation. 1:1 was long off the table by the time they parted ways.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Even if "junk" is included, it's still not 1:1. The vast majority of reporting has indicated it was not, again, by definition a 1:1. They have talked about packages, about "junk" extra pieces, etc. So I have to ask....why do people keep framing it that way? Why do you keep framing it that way? If it's overwhelmingly indicationed that the position is false, what's the purpose for that framing?
  15. TheLeviathan
    That is an interesting comp.
  16. TheLeviathan
    The 1:1 falsehood is being trotted out time and time again to make it appear as though it was an obvious move by the Twins to reject the deal on the table. I don't know if it was obvious. It might have been, but we don't know.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I had forgotten that as well. But we're down this road because of Oliver Stone who has a long history of being a complete ass-hat about mixing politics and history to the detriment of his understanding of history.
  18. TheLeviathan
    C'mon. Knapp's quote is him spitballing. He starts it with an "if" and everything. Widespread reporting on their being a package of players and now a report of a three team deal being tried. The range of possibilities of what was discussed are pretty broad (including the possibility there was a legit off and including the possibility that there was, indeed, nothing but junk), but they don't include 1:1 being on the table when the teams decided to break if off. The Dodgers don't have to be the bad guy. We can stop trotting out this 1:1 thing. There doesn't have to be a villain here.
  19. TheLeviathan
    1:1 suggests that the Dodgers never budged. It's being deliberately trotted out to make the Dodgers look like the unreasonable party when the truth is it could be both or neither. But that doesn't fit a narrative Twins fans will want to eat up. This report suggests conversations got well past 1:1.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Pioneer Press has an interesting article with Knapp talking about DeLeon. That might be part of it.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Well, this is just another report that confirms the 1:1 talk is a total falsehood. If this is true, it's clear they had far ranging conversations on secondary pieces.
  22. TheLeviathan
    As much as the Russians hated the Germans, I can't even imagine how the tactics of the Japanese would have infuriated them. They might have annihilated that whole populace if we had let them do the fighting.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Interesting, they had more complex conversations about the deal than widely reported if this is true.
  24. TheLeviathan
    All of this is great....we still need to be able to get people out. Scoring wasn't a problem last year and while I am a fan of the Castro signing, it's not enough. By the time internal pitching options arrive we could be looking at "Miguel Sano....free agent" square in the face.
  25. TheLeviathan
    You don't know anything for sure either. But only one of us keeps acting like they do. (Hint: you) I only claim to know what we know: DeLeon was the centerpiece and secondary pieces were discussed. I've said before I probably do this for DeLeon and Stewart. Sheffield or Lux would appeal to me too. But I don't know what secondary pieces were discussed and that makes a huge difference.
×
×
  • Create New...