Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    18,575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Tutorials & Help

Videos

2023 Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Free Agent & Trade Rumors

Guides & Resources

Minnesota Twins Players Project

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. My impression is that the same people saying "he might not be that valuable" want to hand him 16M qualifying offers.
  2. At the time Bourjos was seen as a fairly attractive asset. Let me make this clear for what appears to be the billionth time - no one is arguing Trevor Plouffe is going to land you Matt Harvey and Noah Syndergaard and a delicious pie on the trade market. No one. No one is saying that. No one. But whatever value he has is at it's height right now and moving him now gives the team the best chance to balance their roster given the young guys coming soon (OFs) and the young stud we have already at the same position. I don't know exactly what is out there for Plouffe, but the Twins should damn sure be exploring what it is in a FA market with garbage for 3B.
  3. You're fine with paying Trevor Plouffe 16M? I don't have words. If I'm Trevor Plouffe I see roughly double whatever I'm likely to make on the market and I take that in a heartbeat. Any agent that recommended Trevor Plouffe decline a QO should be fired on the spot.
  4. You're seriously going to extend a 31 year old Trevor Plouffe a 16m QO? Holy schnikes I have no response for that. You don't trade him because he's about to be a FA, you trade him because he'll be a 31 year old FA that has an immensely talented player behind him that plays the same position that is dirt cheap and has 5 years of control. Seriously though, a qualifying offer?
  5. That is what I meant. Trading for two years of a player is always going to be more appealing than one.
  6. The rush is that he's gone after next year. His ideal value is right now, any decision after this offseason and you're slashing his value.
  7. The Brewers have a lot of holes.....that's why they're dealing Lucroy and not so much worrying about the impact to their big league roster.
  8. If you're going to reject the idea of going after Wieters, I can understand that. Particularly if you'd prefer we spend that money on the bullpen. But rejecting it based on some fantasy of trading Plouffe for Lucroy? No, I can't understand that.
  9. I agree, trades that will never happen probably do look better than 4/60. Not sure where that gets us.
  10. Man, there must be a tree somewhere that grows 24 year old catchers who hit, field, and never get hurt. Anyone know where it is or care to share the location with the Twins?
  11. Not true. All you have to be is healthy and viewed as the "best" option. (In other words - no competition)
  12. The low risk guys you're talking also have a high likelihood of being no better than what we're trying to upgrade from already.
  13. We're talking about as a mascot right? Obviously the answer is "yes".
  14. The Twins have long equated "pitch innings" with "good". It's one of the biggest problems with the organization's ability to find top-end pitching talent. I'll go out and pitch 200 innings for 4 million and I can assure you it will be anything but "good".
  15. You simply aren't going to find a risk-less FA. By this argument we should just never sign a FA. I don't support that.
  16. Sounds exactly like our CF plan the last few years. In other words, I heartily dis-endorse it.
  17. Those gentleman are not "functional". They are "prayers". If you want to check in on Hedges or Plawecki - sure. But those guys will cost a ransom of near ready young players. Wieters only costs cash and a lottery ticket of a pick. If you're so worried about the cash, charge an extra dollar for every crummy Budweiser you buy at one of the 17,000 bars at Target Field. Call it Waterholes for Wieters. It's just money. We have plenty, why waste time dumpster diving?
  18. His combination of offense and defense is considerably better than anyone else. If your hang-up about catchers is durability...we may want to petition major league baseball for a robot catcher. That's about the only way that concern is going to be avoided.
  19. Who are we trading for? Outside of Norris and (30 year old) Lucroy...who are we acquiring for the "long term" I think people have a completely misguided notion on the availability of functional catchers in baseball.
  20. C'mon Nick, there is a case to be made against Wieters but this isn't it. In every healthy season Wieters has had since his professional start he's been about a .750 OPS player. Soto has done that once and hasn't been a full-time catcher in 5 years. Navarro has only done it twice and only been a full-time catcher twice in his 12 year career. These guys aren't comparable. That's while you'll pay pennies on the dollar compared to Wieters.
  21. AJ isn't even in the same universe as Wieters defensively. We're talking about a high end defensive catcher with a solid bat and all we have to give up is some money and a mid round draft pick? The evidence is abundant that later first round draft picks are more than a bit unreliable for future value. Signing Wieters means we get an immediate upgrade and we give up nothing that will be helping this team in the near future. (As it would to acquire Lucroy) I would be thrilled if we signed him. Thrilled.
  22. Justify? No. My gut tells me they over thought it. The sneak should've been the first down play on a quick count. Then bust out the bag of tricks for a passing try after a tonight.
  23. Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory....
  24. Seemed like a good, down to earth guy. Sad he had to walk away from his dream job on terms that weren't his own. I hope he finds a healthy way to be around what he loves.
×
×
  • Create New...