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
    Chargois, Tonkin, Rogers, Duffey, Pressley and prayers. Lots of prayers.
  2. TheLeviathan
    The hope is to acquire at least two starters for 2018 and beyond in deals to move Santana and Dozier. Since I think the odds of those two players contributing past 2018 is next to nothing (or they are extended and their production slowly tails off and we'll rue not moving them), I'd rather aim to have those 2018 starters come from other teams via trade. Just consider the tradeoffs here. The only thing sacrificed in my plan is a handful of meaningless wins in 2017. What's sacrificed in not dealing Dozier and Santana are viable assets for the next 6 years. Of course it's predicated on our new GM taking advantage of their value and dealing them for a good return....but isn't that the assumption we'll make on all moves we suggest?
  3. TheLeviathan
    You're arguing that it's important we don't drop off from a 70 win team to a 65 win team. I say the difference is moot. Especially if 2018 is helped for it.
  4. TheLeviathan
    If your response to my position that we should trade a guy is "what if it goes badly?" - how is that not an acceptable response to anything anyone says on these issues? Including yourself? Of course if we trade Ervin for nothing it's bad. Same if we trade Dozier for nothing. Does that undermine your suggestion to trade Dozier? No? Mine either. It's a bogus argument.
  5. TheLeviathan
    The false dilemma you keep trotting out is still that: false. We are not choosing between Ervin and Dean. As a general rule, no team should be "in a hurry" to make a deal. I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing "Take moldy cheese for Ervin! Anything!" Can we dispense with that nonsense in every thread? You know, where we paint people who want guys shopped or moved as intending to rid ourselves of the player no matter what? Trade suggestions are pretty much always driven by the idea that we want to get a solid return for a player who is at good value. I shouldn't have to clarify that notion every damn time I suggest a guy should be shopped. It'd be like me turning around every time you or Nick or someone else says "We should hang on to Ervin" and i counter with "Oh, so you want to have him starting games for us when he's 90! Pfff....so much for your opinion!" Just knock it off. Shop Dozier and Santana because it makes sense to right now and trade them if you get a solid return.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Ooooh, can I play this game? But if we play Polanco at 2B we'll have no choice but to sign Juan Castro and play him at short. Ouch. That really hurts your plan! I don't think the options are limited to "Either we have Ervin Santana or we have Pat Dean". Suggesting so is revealing to me about what's wrong with this argument. Look, no one is asking for Ervin Santana to be given away. But he should be shopped. With the market for starters as weak as it is and demand always being high, it makes sense to shop him. Hell, it's the exact same reasoning for shopping Dozier! The only difference is the perceived depth we have in Polanco, which is hardly an established fact. In either case we're accepting a step backward in 2017 to assemble more talent going forward. Exactly why Santana and Dozier should both be available for the right offer.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Of course Clinton gets blasted and can't do anything right according to her opponents. I haven't heard anyone concede anything for Trump either. I haven't followed closely enough, but I'm sure he's wandered into a coherent, decent thought at least once. That's just the way of things - it's relentless, stupid, and unfair basically 99% of the time. The mistake Clinton is making is playing too defensive a game and expecting to coast. Maybe she thinks the debates are when she seals it, I don't know. But her campaign needs to wise up about how the game is being played. Hate Trump for all the right reasons, but this guy has really figured out how to mass manipulate. The playing field is set, it's time for Clinton's campaign to shut the door on Trumps chances rather than continually ceding ground.
  8. TheLeviathan
    So, to be clear: Trade Dozier: not punting on 2017, reasonable course of action Trade Santana: We're lighting Target Field on fire and the Apocalypse is Nigh
  9. TheLeviathan
    Money and politics, man. Money and politics.
  10. TheLeviathan
    My biggest take away was how brazen this is. It shows you the contempt and total lack of regard there is in financial institution for the ramifications of their actions. Time to start making them care.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I lost track of the "ifs" with a totally positive spin at about 7. So your "conceivable plan" is that everything good stays the same and 7-10 things all change for the better? There's a word for that: improbable. But it probably deserves some hyperbolic adjectives too. Then we probably picked the wrong person and we're screwed either way.
  12. TheLeviathan
    What is the conceivable path? A string of good fortunate? I don't consider that "conceivable" in any meaningful way. Unless it's also "conceivable" that I could buy a house with a pot of gold I get from an Irish fairy. Is it "not impossible"? Sure. It's also ridiculously improbable.
  13. TheLeviathan
    If we're talking flukey, 2015 was the fluke here and not a particularly compelling argument for your position. When there is next to nothing on the free agent market, little in the way of immediate reinforcements, and still some huge defensive question marks....I do call that next to impossible. I hope the new head honcho deals more with probabilities than "well, let's do this because it's not impossible that we could be right!" If we constantly look for "not impossible" solutions, we ignore the multitude of ways they could get worse or go stagnant. And it absolutely abandons hope of being significantly better in the near future. Some of you are plainly advocating that 2018 doesn't matter as long as we can turn this 60 win team into a 70 win team. I say screw it. 70 is just as bad as 60, either way you're losing and not going anywhere. And in you scenario, we held on to our two biggest assets for nothing. If I'm not going anywhere I'd rather lose 60 again with the hopes 2018 can bring 80+ wins with the right moves. After all, it's "not impossible" we could deal Santana and Dozier and win 100 games with the talent we get back. If that bogus argument is still in play.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Sometimes a step back is required to take two steps forward. As others have said, there is no conceivable path to turning this rotation into a playoff contender, so aim for 2018. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but no less necessary.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Santana is a fine pitcher, I like him, I appreciate what he brings, but I'm also not going to let some delusion about 2017 guide my decision making process. If we can deal Dozier and Santana and land at least one (if not two) major league ready young starters - we should do it. Santana's clock here is ticking and, like Dozier, this offseason is the ideal time to trade him. Too often lately we've let sentiment and false hope guide our decision making and that's one of the reasons our roster is a mess. We'll be continuing that trend if we go into next season thinking we need to keep Dozier and Ervin. Don't deal them for peanuts, but for the love of all that's holy - shop them!
  16. TheLeviathan
    I don't disagree with this or the rest of your post, just saying, you cited a problem that sunk the last two losing Dem nominees. So, that is part of the worry people have. I think Hillary's centrism is held against her far too much. That's the result of both sides expecting their people to never compromise, compromise and effective leadership often looks like centrism.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I still hope Santana is dealt this offseason.
  18. TheLeviathan
    I believe you walked right past the problem.....
  19. TheLeviathan
    I know, wasn't implying you forgot it. Just mentioning it out of the hope we'll hire someone smart enough that it won't happen.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Or if we force feed Park back into the roster.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Our collective shame?
  22. TheLeviathan
    I'd call each of these teams with this primary target and work from there: Cards: Alex Reyes Pirates: Tyler Glasnow Mets: Ahmed Rosario Among others of course, but the key is aim high with the centerpiece.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I'm confused, there were other rights other than being able to arm oneself like the Punisher? The split among the right and the left on the issue of rights is easily my biggest frustration with either side in terms of how they misrepresent things. One group is clutching so tightly to one verbally mangled right it can't see anything else and the other group walks around declaring every damn thing a right someone is entitled to. Ugh, just....ugh.
  24. TheLeviathan
    We'd be selling low on Sano to trade him. That's ma ybe the only idea I've heard that would be worse than "Let's make him an outfielder!"
  25. TheLeviathan
    I think it's the right sort of deal to aim for.
×
×
  • Create New...