Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,580

  • 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
    Yeah, methinks you were focused on ethics and I was focused on the practicalities of why.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Excellent points ashbury....but doesn't all that speak to my larger point that how a prospect gets blocked is by a myriad of factors that are different situation to situation? The surest thing to assess is roster glut in front and assume that it muddies the situation. Again, our own GM is quoted about how clear the path is, not how talented or well performing they are. Plouffe was clearly getting the job this year regardless of what Sano did.
  3. TheLeviathan
    That remains to be seen - I wouldn't rule out all of them staying with this team in some capacity or another. And again, the fallacy in your logic is that the starter has to be "good" to block the young player. On top of being unsure what "good" actually means (afterall, are we comparing ERA in AAA to the majors? "stuff"?), the decision is often made based on factors outside of performance or based on nuances of development we aren't always aware of. You can also couple that with the article I posted above where Rob Antony said a "clear path" is most important. By definition, a guy with a large contract represents an obstacle on that clear path. To put it simply, if the Twins demote Pelfrey/Correia/Hughes/Whomever with a 5+ ERA in May to call up Gibson I'll be the happiest crow-eater you'll ever find. But I'm not exactly preheating the oven right now for my feast. It's my belief that it isn't how good these guys are going to pitch, but whether they are healthy enough to. That will determine if they block anyone or not.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Well, that wasn't their first action. They also offered their own economic package and terms for Ukraine joining their group. They made this action because things were escalating thanks to what was likely an EU/USA backed revolt. All reports I've seen have said the Ukrainain people are not interested in breaking apart their state. It is a country with deep political divides but also has a lot of interest in staying with Russia as well. It would've been better off if both Russia and the EU stopped using Ukraine as the monkey in a game of monkey in the middle. But there are a number of things contradictory about your post: 1) A bluff ceases to be a bluff when you back it up. Russia didn't have a bluff called, they had their resolve called out. And it appears it wasn't a bluff at all. 2) Your own link speaks directly to what I've been saying - this was a message to it's neighbors. And they are hearing it loud and clear and it will have ramifications that are better for Russia in the short-term. It creates uneasy alliances to be sure, but it's naive to think fear isn't a powerful motivator. 3) Russia is already isolated from the West, this whole scenario started because of the deep divides that exist. Listen, I don't like what Putin is doing, I don't agree with it as a modus operandi for a super power, and I don't like it as a long-term strategy. But I'm also not shoving my head in the sand and pretending this was some kind of unprovoked or hasty move with no reasoning behind it. You can call the Russians a lot of things for this, but stupid isn't one of them.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I didn't see Worley in those future rotations either. You're suggesting that people are lumping them together by talent and I don't see any evidence of that at all. Did some people forget Gibson? Yeah, I guess they did. But lumping him with Diamond/Worley? The only time that's happening is to express that he does not have one of the 4 spots cemented and is in the mish-mash of 6 guys in line for a chance. One of my reasons for not wanting Santana is because I want Gibson in the rotation April 1. I've been campaigning to buy a Correia off with an early retirement package in the Virgin Islands if it would get Gibson into the rotation. I despise the notion that he has basically zero shot of making this club out of ST. Adding to the pile of guaranteed spots only further reduces his chances. For all the talk that he'll "earn" his way in - last year he was earning high quality performances left and right while we enjoyed the dreck of Pedro Hernandez and Liam Hendricks. So no, I don't want that line to get any longer than it already is.
  6. TheLeviathan
    The refusal came because of an ultimatum regarding a political adversary. Along with other pressures to accept. There is a strong sense among international experts that the West then sparked the protests as a way to pressure the Russian-leaning leader out of office. Ever since 2004 we've been working to get him out of office and get a pro-West person in. Basically to weaken Russia. (Which Russia is well aware of) What was Russia supposed to do? Let the West meddle with Ukraine's politics at their expense and sit on their hands? The West has been engaged in a covert war of politics with that nation for almost a decade now to put someone in charge that is pro-West. They've basically been begging to have their bluff called for the better part of a decade. I'm not sure what it will do long-term, but the truth is many of those countries rely on Russia for much of their economic foundation. Whether they like the military intervention or not, they know that. The positive for this for Russia is it may make the West think twice about meddling again.
  7. TheLeviathan
    He's in the same group that are all lumped into 5-9 in the depth chart. Not because of talent, but because of where they are in the depth chart. You're turning it into something else that I don't think anyone is arguing.
  8. TheLeviathan
    I'd also like to suggest that this is enlightening to the conversation: http://grantland.com/features/mlb-prospect-philosophies-twins-red-sox-rays-marlins/ Antony said it himself about the two big prospects, but I think it speaks to the organization's approach as a whole.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Well...what do they all have in common? One spot to fight for. I wish he had a spot regardless but all the dialogue from the Twins indicate he's not even in the running for that spot. It's not that people are down on him, it's that he'll be a Red Wing and not a Twin to start this season. That's part of the problem.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Part of it is the comp pick being attached. If that wasn't there the 1 year deals would make a ton of sense but that's not the situation here.
  11. TheLeviathan
    They'll be cheap for 6 years. What the Twins budget looks like now isn't all that important really. Money has never been my issue with this. It was the guaranteed contracts/spots that is my issue. What Meyer/Sano/Buxton/Kepler/Rosario/Arcia all represent is a wave of cheap, young, impact players. Regardless of what budget space you have it is ALWAYS good to be getting high quality play from cheap players.
  12. TheLeviathan
  13. TheLeviathan
    The problem with your perspective is that you treat "beat out" as if it's some kind of automatic thing where the spot is handed over the instant that would be appropriate. Things don't work that way. They especially don't work that way with the Twins and veteran players. In addition, "Too well" for the Twins is often not the threshold you and I would hold them to. Nor a clear distinction to make even for an objective person. Meyer and Gibson represent more upside and significantly less resources than anyone on the list in front of them. For a young team, that's worth investing in and you can't invest in that without starts to give them. I understand where you disagree and reasonably people could. What I don't think is reasonable is to throw around completely unrealistic scenarios to dismiss a valid concern. Correia and Pelfrey are signed and here until at least July, that's a fact of reality that has to be accepted.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Nothing other than the "eating salary" part is a relevant comparison. Correia is coming off a decent season whereas Blackburn was vomit-inducing for almost an entire season and couldn't even pull it together in the minor leagues. Worley/Gibson/Meyer may not be better, but we'll never know without them receiving opportunities. And the reason you don't make it any more difficult for them to get chances is because Meyer and Gibson represent tremendously more value because of the potential of translating their talent to dirt cheap wins. That fills holes for no cost rather than piling on middling players at exponentionly higher costs. It's a poor allocation of funds. And, again to put this in perspective, as of right now Meyer and Gibson are behind no less than Nolasco, Correia, Pelfrey, Hughes, Worley, Diamond, Deduno, and probably Johnson. I think that's a long enough line already. You want to complain about giving 2 or 3 year deals to some of that line instead of Santana? Yeah, I'm with you. But what's done is done.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Again though, you can't say a move is a good idea based on a premise completely derived from your own feelings about what the Twins should do. It can only be based on what the Twins would actually do. The Twins, after the year Correia had, have ZERO realistic interest in just cutting KC. That's not going to happen and it's a really unfair premise that completely muddies the argument. Again, this team has too many commitments in their rotation right now to add another one and still expect it won't cut playing time/opportunity from Gibson/Worley/Meyer. It will. I personally, would rather not do that. If you disagree with that, that's one thing. But to prop up your argument based on a bunch of stuff that will not happen? That's not dealing with the situation fairly or reasonably.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I don't see how the possibility of an afterlife and science are necessarily incompatible. I've never experienced anything and I'm probably most closely associated with Deism or the Philosopher's God. Even still, I do know of at least one atheist (my sister) who had an experience that truly threw her belief system for a loop for about a decade.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Please, don't throw that stuff in here. If you're playing poker and you bluff, you are shown to be "weak". No one wants war, but if you don't bluff so obviously and so transparently you probably aren't going to get called out. The problem here isn't the response, the problem is the utter stupidity that put the onus on Russia in the first place. Most of the nations in that region play both sides to their advantage and know full well what the EU/USA was up to and what the Russians are up to now. The biggest difference is that now they know how far both sides are willing to go when crossed.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Gibson could prove it all spring and still not get a shot. The Twins didn't do a great job building depth behind Gibson as well significantly ahead of him. Most of what they have is marginally better. It would've been nice to sort out some of those things in advance of March because Gibson may have a real hard time making this club before June or July barring utter catastrophe. I would hope Pinto and Hicks are here early and often, but that might not be true either. Their past decision-making has not always been easy to agree with on how they choose veteran vs. young player. It's a valid and fair criticism. In any case, I'm not interested in Drew for anything less or more than 2 years and probably the same for Morales.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Baseless no more sir....just read Oxtung's remarks above. Now your crush has meaning just like mine!
  20. TheLeviathan
    Yeah, finding the partner might be tough. If one of those two OT does fall...that might be our ticket. Either way, reading the Star Trib's breakdown of our current linebacker group is depressing. Like...really, REALLY depressing.
  21. TheLeviathan
    A) That sets aside any assurances we gave to him and Assumes those teams would want him. These are assumptions. As of now, if they had signed him, it would've pushed Gibson one deeper from a starting spot. That's just a fact and it should be part of the consideration. Subtracting players via trade is not a given and shouldn't be treated that way.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Right, we tried to oust the pro-Russian guy after he rejected an ultimatum we knew he wouldn't accept. Russia just played the same game, only called our bluff on it. It's not like we should expect to play dirty politics to weaken the Russian state and Putin is going to sit back and watch it happen. Again, we got caught playing a dirty game of poker and our bluff got called.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Of course it was an obvious bluff to call - that's why it was so stupid to start a revolt in a country that was leaning towards accepting the EU's invitation! The West/US looks weak because they started a problem that they quite obviously had no resolve to see through, but weren't careful enough to avoid being caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It was a failure of global foreign policy by whomever decided bullying Ukraine into the EU was the way to go. I agree with you about the Winter Games, but the truth is that in many regions brute force/underhanded politics is still the name of the game. Or, at least, damn effective at persuasion. We can both agree to not liking it morally and probably not liking it as a long-term strategy, but it can be effective in the short term. The distinction that north has posted a few times is important though - we didn't engage in brute force, but we did try to bully Ukraine around to minimize Russia's influence. We played our own dirty game, the Russians just called our obvious bluff. Plenty of blame to go around.
  24. TheLeviathan
    But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Corriea and Pelfrey are under contract. There is zero chance Pelfrey gets dealt until July at the absolute earliest and a very minimal chance Corriea does before the same point. They are on the roster, we can't pretend otherwise, and it's an important part of the equation. (Especially for a team that has consistently favored veterans over prospects regardless of talent) If you want to argue Santana >>>>> Correia/Pelfrey - you'll get no argument from most and certainly none from me. The decision to add someone like Santana does have to factor in their presence and the way the team is likely to treat them. This isn't a video game where you just cut or trade people willy-nilly and stash people wherever you want. It's better for this team to target a Santana-like player next year when they've gotten rid of one of these uninspiring "innings eaters". If you are hard pressed to spend money now - do it on offense because right now I'd be shocked if this team wasn't last in the AL by a country mile with this group
  25. TheLeviathan
    I think if it's not a QB I'd prefer Gilbert or trading back for someone like Moseley.
×
×
  • Create New...