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
    So....to avoid taking on risk in free agency you propose they trade assets that could be used in the future success of the ball-club (assets you value so highly you don't dare sign a good player in FA and risk not being able to retain. But trading them away is apparently fine) to get a pitcher for...a year? two? Before you inevitably let them go because they want a big, risky deal? Explain how trading significant assets for a player you wouldn't retain is a better path than using up 15-20M of the 60-70 you have available that won't cost you prospects? I'm confused. And if they add no one...is it your position that you've basically conceded we'll have to get extremely lucky and get enough talent together in a 3-4 year pre-arby window to win a championship and then return to a rebuild?
  2. TheLeviathan
    Let's make this direct and play in your ballpark. Exactly who in the next two years should we be bidding on in FA and for how much. (Careful about not "hamstringing" the future payroll and about what an "above average" pitcher by your definition is) I eagerly await the removal of hypotheticals on your part.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Um, are you advocating shutting down the board? Most sports-related conversations fall into the first two categories alone. I would suggest any obstinance is largely being perpetrated by those who keep painting themselves into corners and then trying a different absurd corner. We should be able to agree on some simple facts (the Twins are cheap, they're going to need to assume significant risk to add/retain players, Ryan's track record on this still leaves the future unclear) and move on. Yet somehow....we can't do that.
  4. TheLeviathan
  5. TheLeviathan
    To me Parmalee has nothing left to prove in AAA, sending him there does nothing for him.
  6. TheLeviathan
    If they send down Arcia...I'll be upset. This kid just looks like a pro at the plate.
  7. TheLeviathan
    What, you didn't hear? Last year was historically awful and next year it will literally rain aces on teams for cheap three years with no risks at all.
  8. TheLeviathan
    The thing about only building for the future is that it utterly ignores the present. (Some of which, mind you, is part of the future and it sure wouldn't hurt to have them winning now for any number of reasons) And if the future never comes, for whatever reason, that just leaves you more present to ignore.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Nothing says truth like: What Businesses largely in the Public Eye say to the Media! Lie or bend the truth?!? Never. I'm aghast at the thought.
  10. TheLeviathan
    The problem with Jim's argument is that his other arguments tell the real story. He has taken a difficult stance - that you should never sign deals with risk. As if those exist. Congrats, you sir have trumped us all in the race for "most difficult" stance. Now please let those of us not content with absurd notions discuss.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I wouldn't say it's a crapshoot, but it is an extremely expensive and risky undertaking. No one, so far as I can see, is denying that. But that's the price to both add and retain talent. Was Mauer riskless and cheap? I sure hope, if you have your hand up right now complaining about the price of pitching, that you were doing the same with him. And if you weren't - you're a hypocrite. If you were - then what exactly do you want? All 6-years-and-under-service-time guys on your team? It takes money to retain and add players and that comes with risk. Also, buying arb years and FA is only different because of the dollar figures, the risk remains the same. Plenty of guys flame out for all kinds of reasons at all stages of their careers. Your point that the team has more intimate knowledge of a player to reduce risk just doesn't fly. There may be some marginal level of knowledge a team has taht is more than a FA pursuer, but scouting and physicals grab the vast majority of it. Afterall, if the Twins had such intimate knowledge over the last 6-10 years they'd have dealt Liriano after 10 starts, never even considered offering Johan a contract, dealt Nathan before his Tommy John, etc. Injuries/the human body are a pretty strong variable, to assert just being around a guy significantly reduces your risk because of knowledge of that just seems to be another hollow argument of convenience. It fits with half the posts in this thread, but that doesn't make it true.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Does Willingham know that the third base coach exists?
  13. TheLeviathan
    Baserunning issues for Willingham, Doumit, and Plouffe. Doesn't take a genius to see who gets the brunt of that problem....
  14. TheLeviathan
    Agreed, on both counts. I don't like Grienke-level deals either, they are hard to swallow and the more you look at them, the more any deal like that just looks terrible logically. But sometimes that's the price you have to pay.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I mean, I get what you're saying, but it boils down to shelling out a lot of risk to pitchers at some point to take that next step. I guess I'm not bias to whether they are extensions or free agents - just that they're good pitchers.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I think the notion this carries less risk is invented and convenient. I'm going to need to see some proof that extension deals work out at a higher frequency than free agent ones. I see plenty of busts for both.
  17. TheLeviathan
    How'd that work with Mays and Blackburn? I think "certainty" of medical knowledge is pretty limited regardless. The fact is, you're giving up a lot of money and years to a pitcher, which carries a lot of risk.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Well played gents.
  19. TheLeviathan
    How is extending a player for the same price any different than signing one? (And unwillingness to make major trades of prospects for established studs is also not a historical strength of our current GM mind you)
  20. TheLeviathan
    If you're waiting for a wartless elite pitcher/contract combo.....you'll be waiting awhile.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I like Provus a lot and Gladden adds something when he's the color guy. But good lord, as the play by play guy I sometimes think dead air would be more illustrative of what is happening. I feel like entire chunks of what happen are totally omitted when he's on.
  22. TheLeviathan
    That's reasonable Brock but that doesn't explain this bizarre notion of hindering future payroll. Any deal then would hinder it, the advantage of signing now is it reduces risk should something catastrophic happen to create a payroll drain. And while avoiding five year deals is prudent in many ways it eliminates the ability to retain or add elite pitchers. I guess I see extremely limited options to supplement our team in the future. And for the "diminishing returns" crowd, signing a bunch of menial 2 year deals or a mini horde of Willingham contracts, won't be huge difference makers. We will have to stretch ourselves into some serious risk players.
  23. TheLeviathan
    It's a good example of both ways this develops - veterans and Gardy's pets get a pass but god help you if you don't fall in either category.
  24. TheLeviathan
    If that was Willingham.....we'd have never heard a thing publicly.
  25. TheLeviathan
    To make Chiefs point more directly (I have been dancing around it too thinking it was plainly obvious) but how can you say "not now it will hamstring us to sign a guy to a six year deal.....but it's cool in a couple years". The likely age of the FA to sign is about the same (late 20s or early 30s) and the contract length is likely the same (perhaps less total dollars now), but the thing different is a six year deal two years from now actually stretches to the mark where we would ideally be locking up our young guys long term. 6 years from now....not so much. Someone please explain the ass backwards logic here.
×
×
  • Create New...