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
    May could have value as a reliever in trade bait for a starter, if I was a betting man I think that's the future I would predict. At some point it's likely we will have to deal specs to augment our rotation.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Things like this are why the Bruno promotion this offseason was so exciting. Good stuff.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I think this is an important point. May strikes me as one of the guys most likely to be dealt to augment the next wave with established talent. So is he more valuable as a high risk, struggling starter or a low risk, lights out reliever in AAA? i think I know my vote, but I give him another year with our coaches first.
  4. TheLeviathan
    At some point, maybe. I just don't like the implication that we're judging Meyer by our other starters. He's most likely going to be better than any of them talent-wise. But our only consideration should be his readiness.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I can appreciate the sentiment here but quite frankly, the status of next year's rotation should have no bearing on Meyer. THe Twins will hopefully do what's best for him regardless. To me, that shoulder eliminates any shot of seeing him before June next year and I would imagine more of a late July call-up.
  6. TheLeviathan
    I try and avoid ESPN but that sounds very interesting....thanks for the heads up!
  7. TheLeviathan
    On the open market, Boras is the same as anyone else. Most of his rep comes from the former amateur signing process, which is very different from normal FA.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Jackson turned down more money so he could make even more money later. Money never stopped being the motivation. and you are right we largely think of extensions as discounts, but the deals they could sign that are larger are hypothetical. Sometimes players chance that and get burned on the open market so players have to weigh the financial risks.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Which is cool, I don't deny that players probably think about those factors, I just don't think they make the final determination. Ultimately, more money has a way of making those go away.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Oof, if this slows baseball down as much as it has football....this could get ugly fast. I hope they've really planned for that - the NHL is VERY quick most of the time, let's hope it follows that model.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I think you have a good post here and what you say is very reasonable, but I think some of that is us projecting how we think as people that don't make millions to play a childhood game. These guys can afford to do all the things you listed above no matter where they sign because they make enough to have as many residencies as they want. Once you're talking millions of dollars, those other things go away. You get to have both, so now it's just about how much you can pull down. I think this is pretty clearly an MLB phenomenon. I think football and hockey players, for example, are more willing to make decisions based on your list above. With baseball, not so much.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Frankly, this is where I hope Ryan is smart enough not to. That's not the right move right now and I'm confident he knows that.
  13. TheLeviathan
    I've been trying to keep this simple so you had the most opportunity to back up your position. Here's the rub: you don't prove a behavior/trend/pattern with one example. If I say, hitters should look to hit Nick Blackburn's fastball because that's the pitch hitters always hit homeruns off of him. Then we look at the evidence and out of 1000 homeruns allowed (trying to stay realistic here as well!), 999 came off the fastball - do you in any way, shape, or form prove my position wrong because on that one curveball a homerun was hit? Of course not. And you DEFINITELY don't tell the next hitter - "hey, look for the curveball for a homerun". That's what is going on here - climate/racial diversity is the curveball. Dollar signs are the fastball. I'm asking you to show me the curveball isn't 1 in 1000. Make it statistically significant.
  14. TheLeviathan
    Lets be clear again - I want actual examples of it happening. This is just evidence of sentiments. I want actual players and the actual deals they signed. this isn't that. Even if we count Pujols.....is that the only one? one guy out of thousands examples establishes this? Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples. If your position is well founded this shouldn't be hard. (NOte: I'm not even asking you to show a climate one! Which you will never find)
  15. TheLeviathan
    Very cool survey but this is like asking corporate execs what they prize most in life. THey will probably say their family or love or spending time at home.....but not money. Then in real life they are never at home and only work for money. So that's cool as an idealist thought experiment, but I can't find any examples of this actually impacting a FA decision.
  16. TheLeviathan
    And here is the problem. The OP didn't say much of anything about "better" or "worse" or performance in general. In fact, the closest thing said about that was somewhat optimistic. You have made this about "the pitching will be bad again" even though the original post was more about "here is the group most likely to be pitching for us". Now, obviously, most of us are going to see that group and not be encouraged. You could be an optimist if you want, but it's completely unrealistic to suggest that the group pitching for us is going to be significantly different. Afterall, there are only so many 40 man spots. Only so many turns in the rotation. Your own example of non-cynical (Pelfry/Harden/Correia) wasn't all that much better than the flotsam they replaced. Or just to the fact that we have so many of these guys still early in their opportunities as starters. Whatever angle you want to take, it's perfectly realistic to expect the majority of our rotation is going to be built from within. You are welcome to suggest who, among that group, is going to exceed career trends. To continue your crusade to diminish everyone who has a cynical view (lord knows cynicism has been so off the mark lately....) is completely unfair in this case. Nothing about the original post was stopping you from agreeing that they could be a .500 or better rotation. Perhaps the real cynic is you - always looking to turn every honest, realistic assessment into a gripe.
  17. TheLeviathan
    So then why do you and anyone else assume climate will make a difference? All FAs are then "independent events" that shouldn't be generalized. Yet another argument that invalidates the one you are defending. So, let's summarize: I completely disagree that climate and racial diversity will decide things more than money - someone made that claim and you defended them. My position is irrelevant to the truth of that, we can decide the truth of that later if you'd like. Please show me examples when a player chose warmer weather over more money. Very simple request.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Leaving out Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde of Scott Diamond, here is a fun breakdown: 5-5 4.11 ERA 99 ERA+ WHIP 1.209 K/9 6.0 2-5 5.69 ERA 72 ERA+ WHIP 1.508 K/9 6.1 8-8 4.59 ERA 90 ERA+ WHIP 1.448 K/9 5.2 4-10 5.32 ERA 78 ERA+ WHIP 1.578 K/9 5.4 W/L might give it away, but can you tell the difference between Devries and Walters vs. Correia and Pelfrey? I guess I'm not seeing how these new names that represent the non-cynical view made all that much of a difference in performance. If you want to pat the front office on the back for bringing in bodies and that a repeat of those moves somehow represents non-cynicism, well, that's a bit of a head scratcher to me.
  19. TheLeviathan
    I'm not sure you've kept up with the conversation. I'm cynical of the team right now and I have no problem owning that. This analysis, however, is not cynical. It's a pretty realistic take on the players most likely to be in our rotation next year. It is very unlikely the team brings in several players better than this list: Albers, Gibson, Deduno, Hendricks, Diamond, Worley, Correia, and (likely) Pelfrey. One? Hopefully, but anything more than that is probably not realistic.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I don't blame anyone, like the OP, who don't like an inaccurate label being put on their position that (whether you intend it or not) belittles the accuracy of their position. Most everyone but you and one other person don't see this as cynical, just realistic. As for the quote - you used the same term and "agreed" with another poster aggressively pushing it as a negative. Perhaps you should read the quotes you "agreed" with and then consider who exactly needs to own up to their position.
  21. TheLeviathan
    You and at least one other poster have implied it heavily.
  22. TheLeviathan
    We obviously disagree in general and that's fine - but I don't think this is true at all. This same doubletalk has been around in various forms for about two decades, it's effectiveness with savvy fans has long been spent. The Twins are banking on the all-star game and all the season ticket tie-ins to keep their pocketbooks fat for at least another year. People may eventually start sending a message via their own pocketbooks soon....but I can't imagine that will spur this team to act. If anything, I imagine the windows will be shuttered even tighter. It's one of my greatest fears about the team long-term, if we don't start winning (and spending more to do it) soon - we may see revenues start to shrink and then our expanded payroll flexibility may start to shrink quickly at the worst possible time.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I can't speak to the 70s and 80s, but as bad as the mid-90s were, I always thought there were at least some things to hold on to that made the losing slightly more acceptable. It might just be me, but I feel like these last two seasons have been far more bleak and un-entertaining.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Could you imagine being Pittsburgh and what they've gone through? It's hard to do. Back when we were in the playoff mix I was always heavily invested and I was never one of those fans who wanted to trade that for a one-year, all-in season. Given me pennant races and the promise of the playoffs every time. I miss the hell out of it.
  25. TheLeviathan
    You can honestly believe whatever you want about Ryan, but it's not cynical to expect his moves to be low-impact. That's all we've seen from him throughout his tenure. It's realistic to expect a long-time tendency to continue. This rush to label people cynics seems like a merit badge people want to earn so they can say "hey, at least I'm still a real fan" or some other hogwash. There are far simpler ways to share your optimism without trying to attach a label on someone to facilitate your argument. You are welcome to suggest that we will significantly add to our talent base this offseason - I hope we do - but I could very easily see Ryan look at Diamond, Worley, Gibson, Correia, Albers, Hendricks, Deduno, and possibly a resigned Pelfrey and say "Well, we have a lot of guys already to compete for 5 spots" and only look for Harden-type gambles. Read that scenario again...it just feels Twins-ish. I will share your optimism this offseason (quite foolishly, so the pragmatist in me says), but our options in-house aren't pretty and it's unlikely we will look to upgrade more than one spot. So even with an unlikely upgrade of significant value - it still "ain't likable" to go back to the original post.
×
×
  • Create New...