Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,299

  • 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. Brock Beauchamp
    And that's a fair stance to take. But Amazon and Facebook are pretty bad examples to use to defend tech valuations. Facebook had its **** together from day one and Amazon basically reinvented itself every year for a decade to become a behemoth no one expected or saw coming, at least in its present form. Most companies are pretty predictable, even Facebook was pretty predictable (in a mostly good way). Amazon was wild west-ing it out there for years and making it up as they went along. If you take the average tech company (which is probably massively overvalued for no exceptional reason), those expectations aren't repeatable.
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    I think they'll do okay in the long run. But only okay, at least in the auto business. I think their real potential is in battery tech on a larger scale than automotive. So, that would put me pretty down on them given their current valuation, which is absurd (along with most other new tech companies, which is why I stepped out of the market last year). If Tesla's stock was $100-150 a share, I'd be a lot more positive about them in the long run. But, like so many other tech stocks, someone will have to pay the piper sooner or later. Either their profits catch up to their valuations while their stock stays flat (possible), or their valuations decline over time to match their profits (IMO, more likely). Either way, long term investors lose, comparatively speaking. And things can go to hell in a hurry if the economy stumbles and everyone realizes that a company can no longer be rationally valued at 4-5x their reasonable cap in a market where their profits have zero chance of increasing over the mid-term. A company like Tesla could see their stocks drop enormously overnight were that to happen because, unlike companies like Facebook who can weather a bad market because they're actually making money, an economic lull would basically ensure that Tesla had zero chance of turning a profit in the foreseeable future.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    I made it pretty clear that I was addressing the consistency argument. I also said in this very thread that I'm leaning toward keeping Escobar over Dozier due to those other reasons you listed. I clarified my point again just two posts above the post you originally quoted.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    Okay, let me say it again: My Escobar split post was in response to people claiming he's consistent and that's a reason to keep him over Dozier. The only year Eduardo was consistent, he posted the same first half numbers as Dozier while Brian absolutely destroyed him in the second half. Please keep the post in context. It is not an argument whether to keep Dozier and/or Escobar, it's a rebuttal to a terrible (and incorrect) reason why to keep one over the other. Also, you edited out the part where I explained that in the post you quoted.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    And my point is that "it's not". Just to drive the point home, these are the first/second half splits of Escobar and Dozier from last year (literally the only "consistent" year Escobar has had in his career): Escobar: .759/.757 (consistent!) Dozier: .745/.985 (what?!?!) Which player do you want next year?
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    That's not my point. The stats were not to show that something is wrong with Escobar, it's to point out that highlighting Escobar's "consistency" as a reason to keep him over Dozier is a bad argument. Dozier is the better player. He was before and it's likely he'll end 2018 as a better player. That doesn't mean Dozier is a better fit for the 2019+ Twins but it does mean the Escobar "consistency" argument is garbage.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah... no. The first five picks do not have the same chance of success as the 23rd pick. And the first couple of picks have an even larger advantage. You're right that the MLB draft is more unpredictable but it's not entirely unpredictable.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    He could be playing with a nagging injury, he might be scuffling for any number of reasons. I simply don't have enough information to definitively declare what should be done with him. And it's enough of a borderline case where I'm not going to get upset about it.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    He's 25 and it's midseason in a year where half of baseball is intentionally tanking. The front office probably thinks there's a good chance he'll be claimed. Not that I'm terribly worried about losing Granite but he's not the type of guy I give up for no reason.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    A completely fair take and the way I am leaning right now. Dozier is the better player, that shouldn't even be in question. Whether he's more valuable to this particular team is the real question.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    I really don't understand where some of you are getting Escobar's "consistency". OPS by year: 2015: .754 2016: .618 2017: .758 2018: .834 First/Second half OPS splits: 2015: .688/.816 2016: .658/.573 2017: .759/.757 2018: ?? In only one year was Escobar pretty consistently okay... unless you also want to give him credit for "consistency" the year he was consistently awful. But even in that consistently "okay" season, he was so far below Dozier's season line that the two are not comparable in value. I like Escobar but let's not build fake narratives to support keeping him.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    This doesn’t make sense. When one of your best offensive players slumps, your offense will struggle. When that player does well, your offense will improve. You’re blaming Dozier for the bad but giving him no credit for the good. Which is particularly weird because you keep bringing up Polanco, who has not been very good in a SSS and much worse than Dozier over the same stretch of time (much MUCH worse).
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    I agree with your point, but... Mike Moustakas' career fWAR (12.4) is roughly comparable to Dozier's 2016-17 fWAR (11.2). Again, come on.
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    Seriously. We're talking about Dozier signing a $5m per year contract for three seasons. Let's bring this back to the original statement and consider the absurdity of it. If we want to talk whether he'll get $8m per for two seasons, I guess that's a conversation we can have but it's likely still wrong. Even in a depressed market, Dozier is a $10-12m player easily because seriously, he's a five win player. GMs are not stupid. One will find a way to fit a player like Brian Dozier into their lineup for $8m a year. At least one will also do it for $10m a year. Even if Dozier ends this season with a .750 OPS, I'd toss him $12m on a make good season because why the **** not? People simultaneously accuse GMs of being idiots and brilliant. Taking on Dozier for $12m in a season (literally 80%+ of the three season total originally posted) is a no-brainer because you're paying less than 10% of your payroll for a potential 4-6 win player. That's a risk you take every day.
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    His floor is Addison Reed money if the season ended today. Dozier was worth 11 wins in 2016-17. Besides, Addison Reed money is considerably more money than Thrylos was talking ($8m per versus $5m per). Dozier's probably going to get a lot less than he wants but teams would have to be crazy to pass on a 3 year, $30m deal if he ends the season with another 4-ish wins (which is entirely possible given his recent stretch of play).
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    Dozier is not going to get less than Addison Reed money. Come on.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    Nick Gordon has a .600 OPS in Rochester with an isoD of around .020. Um, no. Not yet.
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    It's way too early to count on anything in either direction, though the obvious take is that the Twins are close to out of it. But Cleveland isn't exactly a powerhouse this season, anyway. I'm perfectly content to see the front office sit on their hands for two more weeks and then reevaluate. Maybe you try to move Lynn early and replace him with Romero, that's fine. But there's nothing to be done right now, anyway. If Dozier is truly on fire, his value only climbs over the next couple of weeks. I'm interested in retaining Escobar so I'm in no rush to move him, particularly if he's drifting back to a .750-.800 OPS, which is probably closer to a real evaluation of his skill level and makes it easier to keep him in the offseason. The bullpen pieces won't bring enough back to make me care. None of them are good enough to be a July 15th trade anyway. They're a last-minute trade at best and you still probably get nothing worth mentioning for any of them. I want to see what the Twins have in them over the next couple of weeks. Maybe we are pleasantly surprised by the results but I'm not holding my breath here.
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, the left field aspect of the ball has two elements worth noting: - The runner gets a VERY good look at the ball and fielder - The fielder has to make a 50 ft throw, not a 150 ft throw Again, that play was all on Morrison and there’s a good chance it cost the Twins a shot at the win. Kennedy couldn’t pitch and a four run deficit can be overcome in 6-7 innings (can’t remember if it was the second or third when it happened).
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    That wasn’t 20/20 hindsight, as I called it as it happened, saying “NO!” as he rounded second. 1. Alex Gordon has an arm on him. 2. Logan Morrison is very slow. 3. Never make the first out at third base. 4. The team was down by four runs. 5. Logan Morrison is very, very slow.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    It was the environment. Also, A Quiet Place is not a "jumping' movie. That's the point of it. I don't think I jumped once the entire film. That didn't mean it failed, it wasn't trying to do that at all past one or two points during the story.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    I do. But there are times when I just roll with it because I'm having a fun and/or an experience. A Quiet Place was one of those times. But generally, I'm super critical of gaping plot holes. But in that film, I just didn't care.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    But to be fair, there are about a trillion plot holes in A Quiet Place, which is why it's an experience. Don't think about it too hard or it will suck you out of the fun.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    A Quiet Place is a fantastic film that needs to be experienced, not only watched. I told everyone I know to skip the theatre and watch it in a dark, quiet room. I lucked out and caught a matinee with about ten people in the theatre. It was outstanding. Definitely not overrated, simply a film that doesn’t really shine with a bunch of other people around you. (but it’s not a “scary” movie in the sense that it horrifies you, it’s a suspense film that relies on the lack of sound to build fear)
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    Picked up by Amazon.
×
×
  • Create New...