Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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. TheLeviathan
    You just set a Twins Daily double negative record and I think you lost your own point in it. You can do nothing and hope to get better but it's far less likely than actually trying to add assets to get better.
  2. TheLeviathan
    I remember some lengthy whining about this same thing in regards to Joe Mauer last year and the starting pitchers and how did that turn out?
  3. TheLeviathan
    Except, in many ways, we are shareholders. It isn't a perfect analogy, but there isn't one for this situation because professional sports operate outside many normal business rules and scenarios. The closest thing to what the Pohlads are doing, in my opinion, is pocketing things behind the backs of shareholders. Having a higher payroll does not mean winning more games by and large. But with 100% certainty I can tell you that the Pohlads pocketing money does NOTHING to win more games.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I would suggest it's bad for business to essentially pocket money from your shareholders.
  5. TheLeviathan
    No team manages to baffle, intrigue, horrify, and infuriate me all at the same time quite like the Marlins.
  6. TheLeviathan
    No I totally agree with the problems the Twins' method has had as well. I have repeatedly stated they have roughly equal outcomes. What bugs me is pedestalizing a White Sox method that has the same results.
  7. TheLeviathan
    He had 300 at bats in the minors total, I would call that rushing. Especially since another 80 of those came AFTER his debut.
  8. TheLeviathan
    You think 25 years of yo-yoing and "nearly good enough" is just baseball randomness? The more you claim to be neutral the less you sound it. The Sox problem is that they are constantly patching on the fly and by the very nature of how things come available and how patches work - they often flop or have a short shelf life. Here are just a few examples: 1) In order to not have a sustained rebuild they rushed Gordon Beckham to the majors. 2) They patch their lineup with the likes of Kotsay and Pierre because that's the best they can do 3) No farm depth means they trot out a group of hitters in 2011 that are impressively awful with no alternatives 4) They give Keppinger 500 ABs at a Puntonian level of production I could go on. The truth is that the Sox have a problem getting over the hump because they constantly exhaust themselves trying to stay semi-relevant. Their patching isn't sustainable because you often have to invest more resources to do what they do. The Twins strategy requires the investment of time and a combination of luck and good scouting. The Twins could learn a few things from the way the Sox use their resources and the Sox could learn a few things about avoiding the constant depletion of theirs. That's how you find sustainable success, but to claim this notion that the Sox should be commended for staying relevant is like commending the Washington Generals for always being the one mentioned with the Globetrotters.
  9. TheLeviathan
    But what you seem to ignore is that they can be almost as equally confident to be notably worse soon after. So as a fan and a club you are basically using the scatter-gun approach of team building. I prefer a more sustainable model, something neither the Twins nor the Sox feature because of how extreme their tendencies are.
  10. TheLeviathan
    But confidence in what? That they'll have a temporary, eventually fruitless, rebound for a year and be no closer to a sustainable winning track? I'm not sure why yo-yoing from awful to pretty decent is something to admire. I put it about the same as being pretty decent for a long stretch followed by awful for a decent stretch. I admire some of what they do and I'm certainly not putting the Twins way ahead of them. I think they're two very different ways to get largely the same results.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I look at their strategy as tantamount to banging your head against the wall. Constantly being "second banana" because your team building strategy has the patience and long-term thinking of a fruit fly leads to plenty of frustration too. I know the Sox fans I know from down there often get as frustrated with the up and down nature of the team as they do with the losing. It speaks to either having no vision of the future or one that frequently fails - hard to see any other way around such erratic play from year to year. To go back to my analogy, just because you occasionally take a bit of plaster out of the wall doesn't mean you're getting any closer to knocking down the wall. I like elements of what they do, but I wouldn't want the Twins to emulate them in total.
  12. TheLeviathan
    My wife, a lifelong White Sox fan, laughed when I read that last line to her. And having lived in Chicago for awhile I can tell you that most White Sox fans do not have such a positive spin on what you're speaking of.
  13. TheLeviathan
    Yeah? What value exactly? It hasn't won them over much in terms of fan support or a reputation as a perpetual contender. The Sox have largely been a middling team with zero success for much of their existence, so I'm not sure what you're hanging your hat on here.
  14. TheLeviathan
    They've also devoted significant resources and been basically the same as us the last decade. It's not that any of their moves are horrible, it's just that they are always thin (which bites them in little ways that hold them back), they're always chasing, and they're always inconsistent. (Odd as that might sound) Every now and then those inconsistencies smooth out and they perform decently, but just as often the patchwork roster construction and thin depth catch up to them and they give 500 at-bats to Gordon Beckham, Jeff Keppinger, or keep shoving Jordan Danks out there. (Or John Danks for that matter) None of that is to put the Twins on a pedestal. In my opinion they both suffer from the same problem of being too comfortable in their heavy handed approach. (Over Aggressive vs. Pathological fear of Aggression)
  15. TheLeviathan
    Yeah the price for Shark is reasonable, rental price or no, and is like Laroche a lot at his price. All that said, I wouldn't declare this anything more than an aggressive, interesting set of moves because we've seen these same moves fail often. Personally I prefer an organization that operates closer to the middle of those two poles you speak of. I see some smart ideas in both, but often carried too far.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Yup, a lot of Twins fans do it with the Tigers too and it's just not the right way to approach this. The reverse is also true - just because a team is aggressive doesn't mean they've automatically done the right thing either. I get that people want to fawn over a way of doing things that contrasts with what we are accustomed, but that doesn't make it sounds strategy. The moves the Sox have made are aggressive and interesting, but they've had trouble fitting these sorts of moves together for some time. That's the real key. But not every evaluation of another team needs to keep coming back to a compare and contrast with the Twins. That's unnecessary and sidetracking.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Since it had nothing to do with my point, not really. Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen these same moves flop for them many times. So I always treat them as very wait and see.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Where, at any point, did I compare the White Sox to the Twins?
  19. TheLeviathan
    1) Given the rumored package I think there is absolutely no contingency that Shark has to sign an extension. You wouldn't be getting him for this discounted price if it didn't come with a ton of risk. It's still a reasonable gamble, but it's more than likely a rental. 2) I love the post above that says this is just what the Sox do. In 2010 it was Dunn and Crain. They've also traded for Peavy and made all sorts of other moves over the years that didn't pan out in much. We're ten years removed from the flukey run to the World Series (credit to them, this system did pay off spectacularly once), but this is a lot of hot air about what the typical Sox do. They are still generally a bunch of mediocre to bad fielders, with thin depth, and a thin lineup that has a tendency to be streaky. Kudos to them for their aggression, but we've seen this before and it generally doesn't work for them.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I think I'm just done with Liriano, been there and done that. Though I do agree his profile is the kind we should target.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I tend to agree, which makes the move for Hunter more baffling. The best way for this team to improve it's run prevention was to A) Sign an Ace or Make the OF defense not abysmal. They likely won't do A and they may have found a way to make B even worse than it was. That's impressive in a disheartening sort of way.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Oh, is that all? Whew.....
  23. TheLeviathan
    Yup!
  24. TheLeviathan
    I can say, with basically 100% certainty that a bad defense hurts a pitcher and a good defense helps one. Perhaps, if you'd like to test your theory, we should play Vargas at 2B? If defense is so utterly meaningless why do we even care where we play guys?
  25. TheLeviathan
    Now I'm the one that needs a drink....holy crap.
×
×
  • Create New...