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
    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/is-starting-aaron-crow-a-good-idea/ this seems relevant. I wouldn't give up as much as some here, trying to predict his results can be dicey. His repertoire is limited so he would really need to keep that velocity where it is.
  2. TheLeviathan
    I don't understand why the idea of a home park advantage for some players is being attacked here. The concept isn't imaginary and it only makes sense to factor it into personnel decisions. Especially if there is strong evidence to indicate it may be in play - as several posters have done an excellent job pointing out. It's just a shrewd component to include in the decision making process.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Yup another realistic, good set of ideas.
  4. TheLeviathan
    That's the most difficult part of this. It could, and should happen.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Because 3 years would make sure you get Hughes and it doesn't do anything to hurt your long-term budget. He's a good fit here and potential to breakout.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I think we'd all rather just go and sign Robbie Cano or someone whose talent speaks for itself. But when you're dabbling in the middle of the pack, identifying tendencies in players that might better fit your park (like Willingham fitting better than Kubel), then it makes sense to make better use of your money in that way. You "only" play half your games at home, but that half can make a very big difference for many players. Home/Road splits are important to look at for that very reason.
  7. TheLeviathan
    If this happened, "ecstatic" wouldn't even begin to cover it for me.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Hmmm, that is a tough choice....higher draft pick vs. miserable Wisconsinites? How about higher draft pick for us and we root hard for Detroit on Turkey day? Best of both worlds.
  9. TheLeviathan
    That shouldn't make us happy! Tank for Teddy!
  10. TheLeviathan
    That may be true on the macro level (I'm not convinced, I think that takes more analysis to determine), but in this context we're talking about Arroyo and the possible bang he brings for the bucks we shell out. It just makes sense to target players that might thrive better than their skill-level because it represents money better spent. No one is arguing it's going to magically transform him. Just that he might get better results in this ballpark because of his tendencies. It's just a smart thing to do. Utterly ignoring your home park tendencies is a good way to make bad player acquisitions if the fit isn't right.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Comp picks usually aren't more than late 4th rounders for top guys.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Exactly. And Fryer is Clete Thomas. I'm kind of sick of playing the Clete Thomas types of the world because of a lack of foresight about an obvious problem.
  13. TheLeviathan
    can you raise your hand because you have no expectation of contention or because they will field competent catching?
  14. TheLeviathan
    Agreed, I think most of us were in this camp. I just took umbrage when I heard "competent" being thrown around. I don't think it was unreasonable to disagree with that sort of projection.
  15. TheLeviathan
    These stats aren't anymore meaningful than a handful of September at bats. Which puts me squarely in the camp of where we were in August - if Mauer isn't catching, this team doesn't have another option. At least not one that should be playing the position.
  16. TheLeviathan
    A win this week would be gigantic for the program. They've already made positive steps, but this could be a real difference maker.
  17. TheLeviathan
    They shouldn't sign him at all, but if that's the guy they're focused on and he's the one they want. Do what it takes. Even if he's a disaster by the third year it won't impact this team's ability to add or retain players.
  18. TheLeviathan
    The problem is you comp Pelfrey and Pavano and say they are a wash when Pavano only had 60 innings and Pelfrey pitched much more than that and equally as bad. Was it really that unreasonable to think Pelfrey would be little better than the combined efforts of Pavano, Walters, and Vasquez? I'd argue, based on historical evidence, we had plenty of reason to think that. But the bigger issue is that the guys you are fingering as a problem in 2012 were STILL ON THE ROSTER for 2013! They weren't pushed all that far down the depth chart. They were till the first guys up when needed. So it wasn't unreasonable to suggest that given approximately the same roster with only questionably upgraded changes, we might be in for the same results. That was a reasonable expectation to have IMO. hell, the only reason I wasn't in that camp was because I thought they might get a bit lucky. My mistake was that I didn't realize how lucky they may have been in 2012 that Diamond and Devries did what they did. That was mighty lucky and in retrospect it was that regression was key to why, even with better luck and consistency in 2013, they didn't improve much. Those two masked just how deep the problems were.
  19. TheLeviathan
    The problem is that you assume he capped Johan due to the percentage of payroll his salary would take when I see it more as his principles about risks of investing in pitchers. That offer, at the time (not relative to now, that's twisting the argument) was a slap in the face. Especially if we are talking about the actual offer presented by Ryan, not the 80 million Bill Smith offered. I believe Ryan's offer was substantially lower.
  20. TheLeviathan
    And it was plenty reasonable to assume it wasn't. No one needs to revise history to go back to last March and think that group wasn't going to improve much of anything. And plenty of people said as much and were right, the rest of your argument is pretty moot after that. (I for one, thought the rotation had "meager" upgrades and any improvement would basically be because 2012 was so bad that the odds were luck would help them be better. Turns out the upgrades were as meager as I thought) It's a strange argument to suggest that people who made reasonable arguments for why guys wouldn't succeed (Diamond regressing, Pelfrey needing time to recover, Correia being what he was, plus a lack of viable alternatives) and ended up being accurate is somehow unreasonable, drunk, crazy talk. This is a team that swapped Baker, Pavano, and Liriano for Worley and his shoulder, Pelfrey and his TJ, and Correia. And you think one had to be unreasonable to think they may not improve? I get that we have a few people on TD that like to label anything pessimistic as unreasonable, but that's simply not fair. They were reasonable arguments - pessimistic for sure, but nonetheless reasonable - and they turned out right. You claiming that anyone is "revising history" to suggest they predicted that is just plain inaccurate.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Wait, the insultingly low-ball offer for Johan is now evidence that Ryan is willing to spend money? That's a new spin on it.
  22. TheLeviathan
    There are a lot of good points here. I guess I'm curious about something that maybe a 40 man expert could help with. If you count Duensing and Swarzak, by my count we have 11 guys on our 40 man that are starters. If, as I hope we do, we add two guys via FA or trade....how are we going to juggle the 40 man? Is that going to hinder us, because I see a glut of "meh" all at the same position.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I remember many here questioning whether any improvement was made at all. This isn't a hindsight thing.
  24. TheLeviathan
    I don't feel the difference is overly significant, no. You're talking about a motley bunch of below average guys. I may not have predicted exactly those results, but I (and most others) accurately predicted little improvement. i have a hard time addressing the rest because you are mixing descriptors like competent, not exciting, warty, etc to the point that I don't know exactly what your stance is. If the point was that it was revisionist to suggest that pre 2013 there were major reasons to doubt an improvement....I call shenanigans.
  25. TheLeviathan
    Um, no, many of us predicted a repeat SP nightmare before the year started. It wasn't shocking at all to mny of us tht a rotation made up of a guy less than a year removed from TJ surgery, a massive regression candidate, a guy coming over from the NL with shoulder problems, a subpar innings eater, and a wildcard were going to struggle to be "competent", unless your definition for that is a really low bar.
×
×
  • Create New...