Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
  • 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. I like this move!
  2. Listening to Cowherd is like watching First Take. So by that I mean worthy of eye-gouging.
  3. I think Wieters is a catcher the rest of his career. I also think he has at least 1-2 all-star caliber years in him. The problem is what spycake posted - he's a Boras client who is highly unlikely to take a reasonable extension.
  4. You're going to have a hard time getting a good catcher then. The Twins have plenty of money to make that investment.
  5. If we could acquire Wieters and lock him into a 4yr/60M deal (or something) - does that make him a more attractive candidate to people? I fully expect him to post a few more .750ish OPS seasons once he is fully recovered.
  6. I struggle to call him a cornerstone because of his age. I'm not in a hurry to deal him, but I think this offseason could be an important time to see what's out there.
  7. I love the idea of targeting Wieters, but there is a good chance the Orioles give him a QO so the trade package would have to exceed that in value.
  8. Clearly Molitor has been extra inspiring the last two games.
  9. No, I wouldn't offer as much for Norris as Tulo. Tulo is an elite player, even with the risks associated with him. Norris is just young, cheap, and solid. In my eyes that isn't equal to an elite player, even with the risks associated.
  10. You're welcome to your opinion but saying something like "Polanco>Buxton" is just so ridiculous that it threatens to derail this thread, so let's just move on.
  11. The walks are certainly hurting him, part of that could be league adjustment though.
  12. That's true, most of his mentions seem to be more of the speculation variety, but his name is floating around. We read he is on the Twins radar, for example. Now how much of that speculation is accurate is questionable for sure.
  13. I'm not high on Polanco personally.
  14. You're right, we should totally try and get into semantics about what "sell big" means. That's helpful. Anyway, if they want a shortstop it sounds like Polanco might be a nice place to start to see if we can entice them to deal a catcher.
  15. It also says other GMs expect them to "sell big".
  16. MLBTR is a fun site to get lost in.
  17. San Diego News Polanco for Norris? Also, QO for Wieters means he may hit the market after all.
  18. In an effort to consolidate talk on consummated trade talks - here is a mega thread for it. First two deals that went down today: Pirates add Ramirez Kazmir to the Astros
  19. I didn't explain it all with defense - it is the bullpen and the defense. Defense, as we Twins fans should be well versed in lately, has a way of creating plenty of "bad luck". Whatever bizarre way you want to say the defense is hurting them, the point is that their defense is awful and much of the cause of that was directly caused by Beane's trades and the players he targeted in return. But I'm done, they have a bad defense and a bad bullpen. Those are reasons 1A and 1B, whatever order you want to put them in, for their crappy play this year.
  20. Except you don't agree with that. You cited their pythagorean record in response to my suggestion that their awful error total and general bottom 5 ranking in most defensive metrics was another major reason for their problems. So you somehow agree that their defense is hurting them....but that it's not hurting them? Everytime I said "Their defense is bad and that's hurting them" you retorted with "yeah, but run differential" You've totally lost me on your point. Mine is simple - they have a bad bullpen and a bad defense. That explains a lot of why they're bad.
  21. I'm going to just stick with the crazy idea that bad defense helps you be a bad team.
  22. The article grasps what you seem not to - bad defense effects almost every game and generally reduces your margin for error. Which certainly contributes to being bad in 1-run games. Looking at the aggregate of runs allowed isn't going to tell the whole story and never will, that's why it should be a quick and dirty guide to point you to look at the team's key deficiencies. In Oakland's case that is an impressive ability to rack up errors and a bullpen that appears particularly good at giving up just the wrong number of runs.
  23. They wouldn't have to be, one run games reduce the margin of error which makes defensive problems more exacerbated. The fangraphs article makes my point more thoroughly than I care to spend time doing again.
  24. Clutch has nothing to do with it - they were 1-11 in their first 12 one run games. Care to guess how many unearned runs scored in those 11 losses? It's not about being "clutch" fielders, it's about giving away runs and outs in a lot of close games, which only magnifies the problems with the bullpen. Fangraphs agrees by the way.
  25. Except that defense is only, at best, crudely calculated by run differential. Leading the league in errors (and having 60% more than league average) is clearly part of the problem. Their bullpen would be the other major part of that.
×
×
  • Create New...