TheLeviathan
-
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
-
I know in your ducky and bunny universe the Twins are on some pedestal above these teams, but I might remind you to check the standings. Past success has little to do with the future of this team and the moves they should be making with that in mind. But that's ok....If (more likely when based on past history) Terry Ryan doesn't sign anyone and his reasoning is that none of the players were in a price range they felt "comfortable" with - just make sure you come to his defense. -
Derp indeed. You mean the same Scott Baker that is slated to be at ST and ready to pitch? Now neither you nor I know how effective or ready he'll be, but that's what is being said by everyone. 5M for that gamble looks pretty good. 4.81 ERA is not something to scoff at given our current woes. And if you think you're going to under pay a quality pitcher in years or money - you're fooling yourself. I like Marcum a lot but he has MAJOR red flags that we're going to have to ignore to get him. Stop pretending there is some sweetheart deal waiting in our future. We'll have to swallow some bitterness to get anyone in FA. Personally, I'd rather swallow a short-term bitter pill than one that we'll keep tasting for potentially 3-4 years down the road. In either case, bad mouthing other contracts for being "too much" will just inevitably look silly when either a) they don't look that bad in hindsight or we sign one of our own.
-
You missed the point. People appear ready to badmouth every move in which a pitcher makes "too much" while simultaneously being the same people insistent on signing FAs. (See: Dave) Whether the team signs pitchers or not we have to accept that they will be overpaid. We will have to overpay pitching. I don't care what level of faith people have, I'm annoyed that every time a pitcher of any discernible talent signs we have this rush of posters here to tell us it was smart that the Twins didn't throw that much money around. If you want the Twins to get better in the offseason - stop worrying about the dollar amounts. You'll either be a hypocrite when they do sign someone finally or you've bought into the "Twins Way" of offseason spending hook-line-and sinker. (And, for the record, I'm not even saying the Twins Way is the wrong way. I'd much rather avoid FA altogether unless you can sign guys like Willingham, O-Dog, Doumit, Burton, etc.) The Cubs are paying guys more than they are worth (let me introduce you to the past 20 years of FA history if you want an actual lecture on the absurdity of this) but they are doing it with low leverage deals that have upside. I would call that smart.
-
I love how people are praising the Twins for not signing this contract. I'll repeat this again: This is FA. Pitching does not come bargain price. You can get bats fairly cheap, but teams spend money on pitching. Always have, always will. If you're sticking your fingers in your ears and humming to try and explain away your crazy "add three FAs" offseason predictions - just stop. I'm guessing that this is a well-established Minnesota coping mechanism for why our teams don't spend money. Rather than complaining about a low risk one year deal for a starter, perhaps you should be asking why the Twins aren't willing to make the same gambles? Afterall, overpaying for one year for Feldman sure has a whole helluva lot less risk than giving Marcum (who I like a lot!) the kind of money he's going to demand. Ditto Edwin Jackson or anyone else. A team in this state should be looking to make low-risk short term deals, not huffing and puffing every time they have to fork over an extra million to get it done.
-
I've never understood why any league doesn't pool and divide revenue. It takes so much pressure off the individual franchises to support themselves in inferior markets and the reality is that big markets NEED small markets or else there is no league. The NFL's salary cap could be debated, but I've yet to hear a good case for why all media revenues shouldn't be split equally.
-
2 years and 7M for Myers? Oof, the difference between reality and pre-offseason speculation continues to grow!
-
This is not an offensive line problem. They aren't picking up the blitz well, but the issue his his pocket presence is absolutely awful. He runs into the defensive lineman in a natural pocket. He springs out when he doesn't need to. He isn't able to be even as evasive as Cutler. Anyone who wants to excuse Ponder based on the line should watch what Cutler did today. When he broke away from pressure he looked to throw downfield and make a play. Ponder looks like a scared rabbit. And sometimes he scares himself even when there is plenty of time.
-
That's not at all what you're saying.
-
Which is fine, I don't think anyone is saying that we should completely tank next year but it's being interpreted that way. I think what most people mean is not to overcommitt assets with the view of competing in 2013.
-
I think people keep having these arguments because no one ever distinguishes priorities. I agree that the Twins should be in on signing starting pitching this offseason if it has either a very short term window (for trade value) or a long-term window to be part of the team's wave of offensive prospects. But the priority has to be maintaining a strong organization for the long haul and not be focused on improving 2013 at all costs. Any move that jeopardizes the long-term success (6 year contracts to 32 year old pitchers or anything of a similar ilk) needs to be avoided, even if it helps 2013. I doubt many disagree with that, but it's hard to tell because we're arguing past each other most of the time.
-
Yeah I'm not making an argument for creationism, but it's some of the quirky, oddly coincidental features of some animals that form via evolution that seems statistically improbable. If I wanted to make an argument for intelligent design (I'm not) I have always thought the evolutionary process was a strong place to start.
-
My point more was that people are crediting the Twins for not spending that much on Baker. By the end, that credit is going to look really foolish when the pricetags keep rolling in.
-
Among Ponder's issues - getting the ball to Percy a lot is not a priority to fix.
-
What I like is that they've convinced the fan-base that the only free agent deals worth pursuing are bargains. This board is full of people that talk out of one side of their mouth about the need to add free agents and then fill the forum with posts aghast with what was paid to acquire people. You can't have it both ways - if you're going to use free agency, get used to overpaying. Especially if you want quality starting pitching. Waiting for a bargain is another symptom of the brainwashing the Twins have done.
-
I'm almost convinced the Twins aren't shopping him. And I'm fully convinced that's a mistake.
-
It's FA with a ton of cash floating around....what in god's name do people expect? I'll keep saying it, Baker is going to look like a steal at 5M by the end of this.
-
Personally I've always thought the quirky parts of evolution's mechanisms were an intriguing case for intelligent design.
-
I'm not sure they are attacking on that particular subject either, but many of the subsequent cases strike me as petty and vindictive over that initial defeat. Your argument still walks a line far too fine for me. If I hold my "guys only" ultimate frisbee in a public park...can I be forced to include women? I don't see the reason to squeeze that right at all when it comes to private matters. When it comes to things like employment, access to healthcare, education, etc - sure. When it comes to privately formed groups - you're crossing a line into fascism in the name of protecting the minority. I won't stand for that personally. I hold our constitutional freedoms up as a higher good than my personal moral opinions. As should the ACLU - when they do I highly respect them. But the kind of reasoning you are espousing is the same I see from them at times and that is what I strongly reject.
-
Gunn - you fell into the same faulty logic I am critical of. Civil rights was a violation of the Constitution but that isn't what is hapening with the boy scouts. In that case a private club is being formed and they have a right to freely associate. I have no problem tightening our belts about religious tax deductions and contributions but that isn't the issue. If I form a poker night club should I have to allow anyone or am I legally bound to not discriminate? "Guys night" everywhere is ruined. Ditto "girls night". The boy scouts have a constitutional right to freely associate and it is leftwing politics through the ACLU that is squeezing that unjustly. That is a major rollback in liberty. Fighting for minority rights is absolutely commendable and right but that doesn't excuse everything and it certainly doesn't excuse attacking a private club's choice of membership. Fight that publically with your right to free speech not in the courts or the legislature.
-
I don't agree that there should be a higher standard of reasoning for why a group can discriminate. When it comes to employment and business practices I absolutely understand more stringent criteria for discrimination, but private groups should have no such standard. I would vehemently disagree with any state law that says otherwise. I'm free to discriminate who I choose to associate with. I don't have to date a certain number of redheads or blondes. I don't have to have a beer with a certain quota of hispanics or overweight people. Likewise, any group should be able to make similar choices. By this sort of whacky logic 8 year old boys that don't allow girls to join their club are in violation of state law. This entire concept, along with hate crime laws and other non-employment based discrimination are major steps in the wrong direction for me. My moral objections to the way people choose to discriminate shouldn't be codified in law because that sets a bad precedent that curtails freedom. These attacks on the boy scouts are reinforcing that bad precedent and, to me, that's evidence of lefty-politics influencing the group's actions. That disturbs me.
-
Blue Jays Sign Melky Cabrera
TheLeviathan replied to AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Right, this team should be looking to make 2-3 offers of 1y, 5M and hoping that one or two of them work out. Then you can either trade them for prospects or resign as long-term value. I'm not sure how people think 5M in free agency is such a high price. The Twins can certainly afford to toss 5M at Yunel, should've tossed 5M at Baker, and used another 10-12 for more pitching. -
No disagreement on the taxpaying loophole, I agree with your general comments about it being problematic and better left gone. On the topic of the ACLU, that hasn't always been their primary focus. I worry when I see the organization's choice of cases look political and this is an example that shines out on.
-
Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.
-
Totally agree. But just because your opposition is insanely stupid doesn't mean you have to jump in with them. I'm waiting for the pro-choice movement to one day realize: "Hey...you know....wouldn't it be even better for women if we found a way for them not to be forced to make that kind of difficult choice?" That, to me, is when a really important and progressive dialogue can occur.
-
Well said. I find this issue maddening. Both sides have little concern for bringing this complicated, difficult moral issue to a resolve. They seem for more intent on being divisive. One day I'd actually like to hear us talk about really unique ways to make abortions unnecessary - whether that be with technology, male contraception, or whatever.
