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
    Source? My understanding was that he was too streaky and was sent to their minors. Never remember anything about him being soft.
  2. TheLeviathan
    here he had that issue, but the Twins painted him that way. It wasn't an issue before coming here. With Drew a former team has publicly accused him of milking an injury. It gives me pause about investing in him.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Dont forget Radke in 2006 pitching with his left arm basically and Shannon Stewart dying off. But what Smith did going into 2010 and that team looked special. Those two terrible breaks have maybe more to do with where we're at then either Ryan or Smiths blunders. Totally changed the direction of the franchise.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I just wish the guy didnt have a strong history of injuries and a soft attitude about them. That's the biggest drawback to me.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Totally agree. Most of it does fall there, but there seems to be a strong urge to excuse Ryan and ignore the positives Smith had. And just think how different we would perceive him if 2010 hadn't had a flukes concussion hurt the best player and Ramos hadn't got hurt literally days before he pulled the trigger on Cliff Lee.
  6. TheLeviathan
    While I agree that we can never know for sure, it completely kills any kind of discussion to conclude that. At the end of the day that title carries the weight of the decisions. Smith carries the weight of his blunders, but some of them were forced by Ryan's approach before leaving.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Yeah, those two hanging threads left by Ryan can't be overstated. Smith's idiocy certainly hurt the team Ryan took over, but Ryan's indecision/inflexibility on those two pivotal players were huge issues to leave on Smith. Hell, one could argue Smith was the one that salvaged Mauer from having the same issue. The guy wasn't a good GM and he needed to go, but some fairness in evaluating him would be nice. We can all be happy Ryan's back without painting the past with a pollyanna brush.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Right now yes, but lots of chatter that they are shopping around. There offense could be considerably better. Just imagine if, in 2-3 years, we had Arcia, Sano, Hicks, and Rosario all well below expectations. We'd still very much believe in lofty projections. I think KC has to believe that and has some valid reasons for doing so. Basically, if they don't bet on that turnaround, they'd be better off blowing the whole thing back up again sadly.
  9. TheLeviathan
    The problem with this article is that it fits with a larger narrative about Smith that seems hell-bent on painting his tenure as an utter disaster. But take in just a few things quick: His pre-2010 offseason was probably the best of any GM for this team in....well, forever. He dealt for Hardy, resigned Pavano after stealing him from Cleveland, brought in Thome, brought in Hudson, and resigned Mauer. His work in the international market landed us a cornerstone of our rebuild in Sano. He's also responsible for Kepler, Rosario, Hicks, Gibson, etc. So, yeah, the guy wasn't very good. He definitely dug a deeper hole with his own blunders, but Ryan and bad luck has a stake in many of those issues in 2011 as well. So just a little balance and fairness in some of these assessments would be nice. (The author did try to do that for sure)
  10. TheLeviathan
    Combined with the unfair portrayal of Hardy-Gomez and it takes some of the teeth out of this. Also when you factor in Ryan's decisions that backed us into a corner on Hunter and Santana.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Given the talent profiles and almost universal down performances, I think real progress is a strong possibility. They had almost every single thing wrong that could go wrong with their offense go wrong.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I appreciate the optimism, but we said a lot of the same things before 2013 too. You know, like "the pitching can't possibly be this bad again" but we were. We are definitely improved, how much so is just really hard to say at this point.
  13. TheLeviathan
    We agree here, but for different reasons. All I'm trying to explain to you is that you've added a confusing layer to this that really amounts to a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day what you need to happen is what you posted above, which really comes down to your prospects not busting out and developing to what you hope they can be. So that's why I'm on board to wait a bit yet, not much longer, but a bit longer until we start to see some debuts.
  14. TheLeviathan
    He's a pretty close to league average player when you take into account his speed. I like it, if anything this forces Doumit into more of a reserve role. Or off the roster altogether. In either case I endorse that.
  15. TheLeviathan
    Rajai Davis is probably our starting LF and lead-off hitter is my guess.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Which is precisely my point - it's a matter of timing. Not surplus value. By your arguments and Cameron's - the Tigers made a horrifically stupid trade that was likely to cause them a tremendous loss of surplus value. Which is clearly absurd, but that's the kind of corner you back yourself into when you are using surplus value. And we could find examples that go both ways, suffice to say it's not a particularly good way to evaluate a trade. It's better to consider the timing and consider the players in question on an individual basis.
  17. TheLeviathan
    That's not what I'm saying. Projecting player development is what matters. You adding this part about surplus value is a distinction without a difference. If you want to apply it to free agents, fine. But in terms of prospects it isn't relevant. All that's relevant is how they project and develop because the costs aren't variable. As for how it dictates trading, the assumption is that these players will be league average. We see plenty of examples of good, even great, prospects never even managing that. What did Florida get out of that deal with Detroit for Miggy? There are examples on all sides of that issue, I wouldn't let it dictate my decision. If I'm Ryan I let it be dictated by how to maximize my window of contention. But we are not in that window right now IMO.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Yeah that goes back to my first post, I'm a bit confused as to what the endgame is. Especially since none of these starters project well as a conversion to the bullpen. But you're right, it doesn't sound like Ryan.
  19. TheLeviathan
    I have to see Dozier continue to be a player he's never been before (slugger) after pitchers adjust to him. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he didn't even make the top 5 for the team next year. He's a complete wildcard.
  20. TheLeviathan
    You're still just projecting player development. You're adding another layer to it that's irrelevant because all prospects cost the same. Ultimately all that matters is how they develop and perform. The Twins have failed to develop anyone that has performed - that's why they fell off. Not because they dismissed surplus value. Where you may have a point is to your Pirates example, the Twins do need to sign free agents with more upside, I have no disagreement with you there. However, that's not the issue at root here. You want to talk about surplus value with signing free agents - fine. With prospects? It's irrelevant.
  21. TheLeviathan
    id argue that's an indictment of WAR and its use in this context. But if you believe he's even to a replacement player than more reason not to give up prospects for him. Your overall trade was fine, I wouldn't do it but its fine.
  22. TheLeviathan
    I totally get your sentiment, but we're stuck with Johnson now. You don't want to lose Worley for nothing. Same with Deduno. Darnell and Gibson are young. Diamond shouldn't be tossed aside. So yeah, dump Albers I guess but it would feel like a bit of a waste if some of these guys (who have potential to significantly rebuild value) were lost for nothing.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I'd be down for that. I like LoMo as a bounce-back guy away from the pit of misery that is Miami. Also, I wouldn't have to watch Plouffe frustrate the hell out of me every night. So double bonus.
  24. TheLeviathan
    The problem is the 40 man constrains you. You can't just sign 20 guys and hope 5 work out. Your pile of 20 will whittle before you even get to start throwing them at the wall. At this point the team has a lot of weight on the 40 man roster that is redundant. Some things need to get cleared out.
  25. TheLeviathan
    That worries me as well, I feel like adding another FA starter right now (prior to any 40 man roster moves) means losing someone who might have value for nothing.
×
×
  • Create New...