Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
  • Posts

    32,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Apple on the skids. I expect to see this start to spread to other companies. Maybe it won't happen all at once but I think we're heading for a lengthy market downturn.
  2. Ah. I knew he was one of the FJM guys but didn't know which one.
  3. Yep. I view Parks & Rec and The Good Place as nearly polar opposites, at least in the sense that they're as different as shows can be that were created by the same person. Parks & Rec was a boring, pretty straightforward high level concept that thrived on nearly perfect execution and acting. The Good Place is an excellent high level concept with *much* weaker execution and acting. Not that I hate The Good Place or anything. There's a lot to like about the show but it's definitely a step down from Schur's previous work on Parks & Rec and The Office. BTW, learned something hilarious just a few weeks ago. Michael Schur (writer for The Office, showrunner for Parks & Rec/The Good Place, EP on Brooklyn 99 for those unaware) played the role of Cousin Mose on The Office. It makes sense once you think about it because Schur's trademark has become nearly perfect (and infrequent) use of tertiary characters like Mose but it's still freakin' funny.
  4. If Hrbek played today, he’d be a borderline HoF case (though he didn’t play long enough to make it). He was criminally underrated during his career because the game didn’t properly appreciate his skill set.
  5. Some good points in there but a few years too late to matter, as they were obvious 3-4 years ago. Apple has been stagnating for years in every avenue except one: chip development. Did you know that the chip in the iPhone is more powerful than the chip you will buy in an $800 laptop, yet costs significantly less? Did you know that the chip in the iPad Pro is more powerful than the chip you will buy in a $1200 laptop but, again, costs significantly less? Apple is poised to absolutely destroy both Intel and Qualcomm. Now, they won't do it because they make their money from their devices but if that soured and they began to sell SoCs... holy ****, the market would flip on its head. Literally, Qualcomm can't match what Apple was doing 18 months ago... and the gap continues to widen. Apple has come to the point where the latest iPad Pro (starting at $800, I believe) is out-powering their $1700 laptops from Intel. Apple is the best processor manufacturer on the planet, PERIOD. What they're getting from wattage and power versus cost is unrivaled... and it's not close. It's a "we're 50% better, what the **** are you people even doing?" situation. With that said, I would not buy their stock. They're either going to plod on or change radically, either of which will cause massive stock fluctuations.
  6. Well, the situation was completely different last year. They had FAR less money (Mauer, Dozier, Santana on the books) and free agents were falling into their lap at bargain prices. And they still posted the highest payroll in team history. Now, that payroll was still too freakin' low but they don't get to dictate fiscal policy with the team. I don't really care about contract length, I want quality players. Frankly, I don't understand your fascination with "doing something for the future", Mike. You realize most long-term contracts are absolute albatrosses near the end and some (like the Darvish contract we were clamoring for just last offseason) are albatrosses the moment ink is put to paper. I'm not lobbying for the Twins to sign a six year deal, I'm lobbying for them to sign good players. That often requires 5-6 year deals but if you shop smartly, you can get some pretty damned good players for 2-3 years at a time.
  7. To be fair, it's still really early this offseason. I simply can't get worked up about another deal of this kind. If it leads to a larger signing in a month, yay. It's *way* too early to judge the offseason but I can't work myself into a state of excitement over this kind of thing, either.
  8. In a vacuum, a fine deal and the type of deal teams like the Twins need to make (and succeed at) to thrive. But I'm getting sick and tired of "fine" deals. This team has a truckload of money and they need to spend some of it on players who are more "guaranteed" than "upside if things go right".
  9. I think the trend started a few months ago. IMO, we saw the peak of the market around that time and it's going to be a bumpy ride for at least a couple of years.
  10. That's fair, though you could probably work up an interesting system where you keep both Austin and Cron but sub in Kepler at first base occasionally, then rotate someone else through DH and OF. Like I said, I'm not impressed much by this deal but I'll wait it out and see what else is planned.
  11. Frankly, it's irrelevant how good or bad Rooker looks. He hasn't played a game above AA and the Twins just picked up a year-by-year player. When dealing with up-and-coming prospects, the correct way to proceed most of the time is to pretend they don't exist in any single year. You pick up players to fill the necessary roles (but maybe avoid 3+ year deals) and then be happily surprised when said prospect takes the job and forces out the stop-gap player.
  12. To put it as gently as possible, I'm glad those "analysts" aren't running the team.
  13. I'm pretty lukewarm on this deal (but hey, free stuff and whatever) but that's a bit unfair to Cron. For whatever reason, he just doesn't get playing time... but when he plays, his hits pretty well (career 112 OPS+ and only one season under 100 at 98).
  14. Damn, I knew the market had been crapping all over itself recently but I didn't realize how much it had fallen, particularly in the sector I was heavily invested (tech). I sold my stock in July of 2017. If I wanted to repurchase, I could buy back into most of my stocks for lower than I the price I sold.
  15. I wouldn't buy any tech right now but I think Facebook's long-term outlook is still very strong. They're the one social media company that understands how to make money. And I see them remaining the sole powerhouse in that market. I don't see how any one could lure people away from their platform in large numbers, it's simply too comprehensive at this point.
  16. *blank stare* Well, ****. Didn't see that one coming.
  17. As far as tech goes, I think they're a pretty safe bet for awhile. My biggest problem with anything in the market right now is that I think the economy is due for stagnation or even contraction, which is going to pinch a bunch of tech stocks because they're: 1. Primarily consumer-driven, which means a downturn hits them hard as consumers cut spending harder and faster than business 2. Most tech stocks are massively overvalued based on a hopeful market that profits will someday catch up with valuation, a tall order if sales plateau or even decline
  18. I think Roku will get squeezed a little by the competition over time but they should do okay for themselves. They’re the only company pushing hard to win on a few fronts: price, integration into TV sets, and high quality interfaces. Apple doesn’t compete on price, Google doesn’t compete on integration (and Google’s strategy is so scattershot that they hurt themselves constantly), and the game consoles are too bloody expensive for most people. Roku’s overall market overhead is probably a bit limited because of the competition but I think they continue to be a leader in the market for quite some time.
  19. No one operates at 100% in game 84, not even Pete Rose. Sure, he operated at a higher level than most but no human being operates at 100% all the time. We're literally not wired to work that way, our brains actually can't maintain that kind of frenetic pace in perpetuity (thanks, mammalian ancestry!). Expecting an athlete to maintain 100% intensity for 3 hours a day, 162 games a year is unreasonable. That doesn't give players an excuse to skate or loaf when there's a legitimate chance to make a play but it does mean I don't get too worked up when a guy jogs out an IFFB in June. Give me a good, solid effort 100% of the time. When it really matters that you leg out that extra inch or throw the ball just a little bit harder, lay it out and go for it... but no one should expect the latter effort day in, day out of a 162 game season.
  20. Almost but not quite. The handbook predates Twins Daily, which was founded in June of 2012. As we all know, the wheels came off the Twins bus quite spectacularly in 2011.
  21. From the sound of things, all three of these guys are on the same page (and close to the same age, to boot). I suspect it will be a cooperative effort to choose the coaching staff, especially because Baldelli has never actually managed before. But given that all three of these guys say the exact same things (analytics are important but only a tool; personnel, scouting, and player coaching come first, etc.), it's likely that all of them are looking for the same traits and complementary pieces in the coaching staff.
  22. At first, I thought it was a little bit odd that a guy as intelligent as Baldelli hadn't already learned to speak Spanish. Then I remembered that he has spent the past ten years learning front office management, scouting, and coaching at the MLB level. I suppose throwing "also learn to speak Spanish fluently" on the top of that pile is likely asking a bit too much. Still, I hope he puts in the work to accomplish that goal at some point.
  23. It's been quite a while since I read up on it but I thought he was receiving some treatment. I know a huge problem for his playing days is that for a large chunk of it, he didn't actually know what was wrong with him. The disease was discovered pretty late in his career, IIRC.
  24. I also would have been fine with Espada. I don't think the team would have gone wrong with either candidate.
×
×
  • Create New...