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
    Absolutely and I feel the same about Jones. But greatness has different echelons, my beef with Jones is that I often think he gets elevated beyond what he's due. I've heard much more glowing talk over the years about him than I have about Beltre. And I consider the two on the same level.
  2. TheLeviathan
    The gap in defensive ability is also stark, but if you like WAR they are very close.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Maybe we're lost in symantics, but I don't think my stance is all that different than the post you made relative to Griffey. Perhaps we differ a bit on where he is in the pantheon, but my point was that I wouldn't consider Jones anywhere near the same echelon as Griffey. And I'd say he's a considerable distance away from anyone in that kind of company. He's a hall of famer for sure, but I do feel like he sometimes gets pimped a bit heavier than I'm comfortable for a guy who basically spent his entire career between good and damn good. But never even approaching "wow!" in my book. He comps fairly well to Adrian Beltre and I think of Beltre in much the same way.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I think he's a HOFer, but I'm probably much lower on Jones overall than most people. I think he's closer to a fringe HOFer than a shoe-in, elite type guy. I consider Griffey among the elites, Jones can't even touch him IMO.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Yeah, there was something about a guy going from catcher, to 2B, to CF that I marveled at. I just loved what a gritty player he was.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Vlad the Expo was easily my favorite non Twin. Probably of all time or right there with Biggio.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Pudge's arm might be the best I've ever seen, but he wasn't the total package Molina is.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Or they haven't budged. Or the Dodgers have made them unavailable.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Again, another reliever i'd have been happy to pay much more than that off the board.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Perhaps. But I'm not sure Rubio is ever the answer. So I don't mind them shopping around a bit.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I'm going to hang in there, i prefer to give shows 4-5 episodes.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Maybe the Cubs did. Either way, signing a veteran starter doesn't mean you've abandoned all hope in your other pitchers. The idea that signing Rich Hill means the Dodgers think DeLeon is a lemon is nonsense.
  13. TheLeviathan
    You said "relatively low chance to be a starter" - relative to what? That statement sounds an awful lot like an opinion relative to other pitching prospects. So what or who is it relative towards? Dozier is not going to get you the equivalent of Berrios + Kepler. If that's what you're waiting for, you're never going to get anything. No one in their right mind would pay that. I doubt 99% of the posters here would want to do that if the situation was reversed. I value DeLeon a lot like I did Berrios. A pitcher with some noticeable flaws, but who has put up some gawdy numbers on his way up the ladder who has real potential as #2 with good coaching. So...a damn nice piece. And better than I expected as a centerpiece for a 30 year old middle infielder with ok defense and no future on this team where we win anything. So DeLeon plus Stewart? Or Calhoun? Or even Sheffield? Yeah, I'm for sure listening.
  14. TheLeviathan
    So the Cubs signed Jon Lester because they didn't believe in Kyle Hendricks?
  15. TheLeviathan
    It seems like you might be playing fast and loose with what "close" means then. Is 84 wins close enough to 89? How about 86 like the Tigers? If you think this team "should" be an 81 win team, those outcomes should be well within your expectations. And if you think they "should" be an 81 win team, perhaps they should be worried about the left side of their infield. I agree, if they are some 70-75 win team, no worries. But you're arguing a more aggressive stance than that, one I would argue should care about that side of the infield.
  16. TheLeviathan
    1) I have readily acknowledge the risks of JDL. Repeatedly. I've said that gambling on upside is something we have to do. That's the definition of risk. So no, I've acknowledged it. Repeatedly. And just did so again. And will do so again in the next paragraph. 2) "relatively low chance of being a good starter" is nonsense. That's your opinion and a host of established scouts disagree with you. Don't suggest this as fact. It isn't. He has more risk than Dozier. He and Dozier have different forms of risk, but JDL is riskier. Hence why I do want 2nd and 3rd pieces and have said so. I just am not going to demand Kepler with my Berrios to make a deal like many of you. 3) All it shows is that they'd rather use him to augment another position, not that they view him as garbage. They're trying to maximize an asset that will best help their team. This kind of phrasing is basically just dressed up "nefarious" talk. That the Dodgers have put lipstick on a pig and are selling it to us. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying is nonsense. JDL is highly regarded by a wide array of publications and scouts. Unless you allege some vast Dodger conspiracy that they've roped in a multitude of outlets to join them for the sole purpose of duping some future trade partner....it's absolute nonsense.
  17. TheLeviathan
    You're moving the goal posts around. Your article says "there shouldn't be any reason they aren't a .500 team" (A clear suggestion of an 81 win team with a window to be better than that, hence "close to the playoffs") and then respond to my comment by giving a range that doesn't even include the number you cite in the article. At times in this article, and certainly in the title and at the conclusion, you seem to be suggesting this team is going to be close to the playoffs. So you can't just brush aside the fact that they are also about to start a left side of the infield and say it's no big deal because they won't be close. So I guess I'm curious - what is it? Is it a team you are predicting to be 75-80 or a team that's close to the playoffs? You seem to want it to be both.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Also, how can you argue for a paragraph that a team can live with a Polanco-Sano left side of the infield because they "won't have their head above water" and then insinuate they'll be playing meaningful games? Isn't one of hte biggest on-going issues defense? You touch on it, correctly label it, dismiss it as not mattering to a team that won't be all that good and then go on to proclaim they'll be alright. That doesn't compute.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Did we beef up our inter-squad games to help this total?
  20. TheLeviathan
    Not at all, I just think some of the way you phrased your argument lead me to believe you were going past the point you restated here. The Dodgers are in the enviable position, but I might argue for a different reason: They have a lot of what a lot of teams don't. Namely: pitching. And we are in the unenviable position of having almost none of it. I've argued a few times in this thread that I think our need is far stronger than LA's. So that absolutely puts them in the more enviable position. And, if the situations were reversed, I'd expect we'd use that for leverage too. It sucks, but a lot of things suck about our position right now. So I completely sympathize, I've just sort of made peace with that long before this even started,
  21. TheLeviathan
    I still don't mind the process as far as pitchers go. If you think you can lock one up at an affordable rate and you have confidence he can contribute - I'd make the same move again. Pitching is a risky investment and it's always going to be no matter whether that investment is with dollars or trades.
  22. TheLeviathan
    If someone at this time last year had called us about a third baseman and we said "You can have Plouffe", would the inclination to say "Oh, not letting us have Sano eh? Must be something wrong with Plouffe...." be at all justifiable? That's a really strange leap of logic. I mean, it could be true, but it's far from the most plausible explanation.
  23. TheLeviathan
    All trade discussions are in a "fog of war" type environment. What I take issue with is it seemed like these talks are being characterized as borderline nefarious on behalf of the Dodgers. Which is absurd. They're shopping an asset that is highly regarded by all sorts of non-Dodgers people. And if these negotiations were nothing but the Dodgers forcing DeLeon on us against our will, I highly doubt trade talks would've continued. Nothing about that characterization makes much sense. Yes, the Dodgers have more detailed information about Deleon. The Twins also, by the way, have asymmetrical familiarity with Dozier. So I guess I fail to see how that makes the Dodgers the guy wearing the black hat here.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Hughes-Santana-Santiago-Duffey-Gibson: My nightmare scenario.
  25. TheLeviathan
    All teams go through cycles where they have to deal more known quantities for unknowns. We're not in a position to add knowns, we have desperate needs and acquiring the means to fix them is going to take outside help. And when you're bad, IMO, it only heightens the need to take risks to reverse that. Not clutch on to what meager things you have out of fear of what might happen if you make a move. We're going to have to take gambles or risk being bad even longer.
×
×
  • Create New...