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
    Well, at least this suggests (rightly) that Garza is the better pitcher. Though I'm baffled where and how you draw that line.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Were they? I remember hearing some speculation based on us not having an established SS, but I don't recall them being linked.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I can't believe it's Drew or Young if we are "circling back". That would almost have to mean Garza or Arroyo right?
  4. TheLeviathan
    I don't think anyone would dispute this. It's too bad this FA class was so shallow in hitting, but that doesn't man the Twins HAVE to sign one of these available guys. If they are going to dole out more money, I hope it is for a bat though.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I think that's the most interesting part. The Twins seemed to have learned from their mistakes last year when they sat back and the market blew past them before they knew what happened. This year, strangely, has been the exact opposite. Maybe it was the first year with the extra money floating around and GMs were hesitant about how that would change things? Either way, the Twins were right to do things how they did them. I'm still baffled people are dogging Garza like this. If we had signed Garza for 4/52 and someone else signed Nolasco for 4/52 - we'd be laughing to the bank about this value by comparison. I feel like we're being protective of the guy we got rather than looking at this objectively. I guarantee in the reverse people wouldn't be taking this same "Nolasco and Garza are worth about the same" tact.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Check his splits. It didn't help his power - but it sure as hell helped everything else. To the tune or roughly .200 OPS points.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Nolasco has been a league average starter his entire career despite pitching most of it in a pitcher's wet dream. And now he's coming over to the place NL pitchers come to die. Durability is great, but it's not substitute for talent. If it was, we'd all love Correia a lot more than we do.
  8. TheLeviathan
    I would suggest that if reliability was as important as talent, it would reflect in contracts, but it doesn't. There is plenty that could go wrong both ways, but right now the odds are that this is a much better deal. It's just crazy to expect the Twins to have known quality #2 starters are out there for 50M.
  9. TheLeviathan
    I don't think they're very good at all. Odds are that this deal looks fantastic, so I doubt Nolasco's odds look better. That doesn't mean, however, that the Twins weren't right to be aggressive. It was just hard to foresee something like this.
  10. TheLeviathan
    I would too, but I'd much rather limit the years. The dollar amount per year I don't care about as much as I do giving that many years to a character with lots of red flags. Statistically there is plenty to worry about him translating last year's success somewhere else as well. I wouldn't get my pitchfork and torch out if they signed him.....but I'm also in no rush to if he goes somewhere else.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Um, just how on earth do you think the NBA is somehow kicking MLB's butt? A cap would be nice at some point - you know what would be better? Sharing media revenues. I get the arguments why they should stay separate, but that difference is by the biggest factor driving financial resources.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Drew also has a history of injuries and at least one team that was happy to be rid of him. He's also about to enter the downside of his career trend. The more I've thought about 4/48, a draft pick, and his profile - the less I think of it as a no-brainer and the more I can see arguments against bringing him in. He's just not good enough and reliable enough to warrant bringing in. If he wants a one or two year deal? Alright, then I'm in on this being only payroll, but at his current asking price his profile has lots of red flags.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Yeah, on the face of it, this will be by far the best contract any team inks this offseason from a value standpoint. If the Twins had signed this, we'd all be rubbing our eyes to try and believe they managed it. This is a REALLY good deal for the Brewers. Even if he flops and has injury issues, right now there is no way to judge this as anything but a huge win. Fans of the Orioles and other near-contenders with needs and money to spend have to be just hating this.
  14. TheLeviathan
    While this is reasonable, the problem with those wanting more signings is that they ignore the fact that there may be reasons other than payroll not to add these players. A whole host of reasons really. That's the disconnect.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I'm sorry, but after reading this post I get the distinct feeling you are playing video game baseball general manager. Not reality baseball general manager. None of those things actually happen in real life.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Prince Fielder is your example? What, exactly, did he get the Tigers? No WS title and a player who looks like he's aging fast, just owed less money. Your one example is dubious at best. And the Marlins? Is there an organization more universally despised? No one is going to want anything to do with them. Their titles were a lifetime ago. Typically, if I'm going to go around banging the drum of "here is what works" - I have better than two crummy examples to base that on. They did use all of them this year. Last year that criticism was very valid. This year? I think it requires a tinfoil hat to suggest they didn't. So you only want to commit money this year? Are you suggesting one year deals? If you're not, the salary commitments you make now impact future years. Given that this team is still a few years off, I'd rather incrementally address the needs. That's a better strategy to maximize your money rather than spending just to spend. If you want to argue it should've been Garza and not Pelfey, fine. But that's not what you're doing.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Why would you do that in a thread about right now? Anyone defending the FO last year had no ground to stand on, but this year was different. All FAs have warts. The Twins didn't sign world beaters but they were aggressive (very early signings) to address needs. (pitching) There also isn't anything close to a world beater left. Save some of those bullets for the next go at things.
  18. TheLeviathan
    They switched out contracts of players with no future on the team and who weren't helping them for players who can. Would you have slept better at night if they handed Blackburn 20M for next year just so you could say the payroll increased? It's foolish to judge the success or failure of an offseason by some subjective threshold of total payroll. The idea you can pluck up multiple players and trade them requires there to be several factors go perfectly. There are two spots the Twins could upgrade in FA and there are a myriad of factors beyond their pricetag that would be a reasonable basis for the Twins to avoid that route.
  19. TheLeviathan
    So it was smart not to give Cano that much money? Where does this smart/not-smart threshold happen exactly? The Yankees have ended up giving almost as much per year to a guy with a 108 OPS+ over his career (heavily weighted by a flukey season) and a guy whose never thrown a pitch in the majors as they would have to retain a player who has been a 140 OPS+ guy for the last four years. Sorry, but that's stupid.
  20. TheLeviathan
    "Smart" is not the term I would use. Aggressive? Sure. Smart? Um, no.
  21. TheLeviathan
    The quality was just fine. Certainly vastly better than what they replace. Why can't things be incremental? Why does the payroll have to reach 50% in one year? Last year I was on board trashing the effort because it was non-existent. This year was not the same. Spending isn't a shortcut and it is a necessary thing to do. But spending it all at one isn't necessary, and even moreso, it's just not very smart.
  22. TheLeviathan
    I don't get why we are worried about what the payroll's bottom line is. We were right to be bothered by it last year but it was because of the quality of the moves made in light of the payroll. This year, they've made numerous quality moves to add payroll. Rome wasn't built in a day. Pouring money into it for the sake of it won't change that. The key to this offseason wasn't the quantity of money spent, it was the quality it was spent on. And for that the Twins should get a big thumbs up.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I'll clarify: Academia = Universities. I'm sure there are a few beacons of intellectual integrity out there in the world, just not enough for me to avoid generalizations.
  24. TheLeviathan
  25. TheLeviathan
    If a degree is all it takes to qualify/disqualify someone please explain this list: http://creation.com/creation-scientists At this point, a college degree behind your name is borderline meaningless. I'm not happy to say that, but it's true.
×
×
  • Create New...