Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,297

  • 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
    Sure, I understand that... But it's possible, maybe even likely, that Gordon improves as much or more than the other guys in the system. It's possible he becomes a very good defensive SS who posts a .750 OPS in the majors. In today's game, that's a top five shortstop.
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    Possibly... but each of those players require pretty drastic improvement in some facet of their game where Gordon merely has to keep doing what he's been doing to reach the majors in some capacity. I think you're undervaluing the "acceptable at everything" aspect of Gordon, especially from a guy at shortstop.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    I mostly agree but Gordon makes the majors barring injury. Given his "entirely adequate" skillset, he has a floor of futility guy. He's not exceptional at anything - at least it appears that way - but he's not bad at anything, either (unlike Polanco and Vielma). That guy makes the majors almost every time. In essence, he'd be Levi Michael with defensive ability. If Michael could play short, he's probably with another team in the majors as a backup infielder going into Opening Day.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    My problem is that's the kind of thinking that led to the stunted development of Carlos Gomez and possibly Aaron Hicks. Gomez, as we later saw in Milwaukee, had the same raw talent Buxton has today. Don't screw that up by forcing the issue if it's not the best thing for the player. If Buxton looks like he won't embarrass himself, yeah, he should be in Minnesota. If he's flailing away at breaking pitches like Bugs Bunny, do what's right for the kid and that's a demotion back to Rochester so he can work on development without the glare of The Show pressuring him to perform.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    I think that's (mostly) fair. Gordon has fewer flaws than Polanco (defense) and Vielma (offense) but Palacios is interesting, for sure. I know little about the kid, though. Gordon is more of a sure thing than the first two guys, though... He's kind of a mix of the best traits of each (Polanco's acceptable bat and Vielma's very good defense).
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    I absolutely do not want to see Santana as the Opening Day centerfielder but the ball is in Buxton's court. If he doesn't perform in spring and/or look ready to face MLB pitching, then the team has to send him back to Rochester for his own good. I do not want to see Carlos Gomez version 3.0. Do what's right for the player, not what fans want to see. The Twins have done that with two talented centerfielders in the past decade, we shouldn't encourage them to do it a third time.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    Hard to say much about risk/reward when we're just two years past the draft. Not every player develops at the same rate and Gordon might take additional time to get there, time will tell. IMO, as far as #5 picks go, he was a relatively low ceiling guy. And that's okay if his bat pans out because, by all accounts, the defense is there to be a fixture at short for a long time. For me, the most important thing is how Gordon adjusted to A ball pitching last season. He went from a first half .250 .325 .301 line to a second half .302 .347 .416 line. Sure, he's not hitting many homers but his doubles went from eight in the first half to 15 in the second half. When talking about a 19 year old player with a slight frame, that's a very positive sign the homers will come at some point, even if he'll never be a power hitter. 2016 will be telling. If Gordon rips 25+ doubles in Ft Myers and hits zero home runs, that shouldn't be cause for concern. When it comes to a 20 year old guy in Ft Myers - a notorious pitcher's league - we should be looking at gap power, not home run power.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    He's quick but not in the class of his brother. Few players are. Most people believe Nick can swipe 20-ish bags at the MLB level.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    Absolutely. I'm just having a bit of fun.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    And if they help the Twins contend in 2016 and 2017, that's just fine. Contending teams shouldn't think too hard about what a player might bring in trade and whether he's "devaluing" in trade value if he's actually contributing on the field. It's one of my pet peeves on sports forums. Sometimes, the smart move is to worry solely about the on-field product and not think about possible trade value. It's why I'm okay with the Twins letting Plouffe walk after the 2017 season if that's the smart play (ie. he's worth his yearly salary in production and helps the Twins win baseball games).
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    It will be interesting to monitor the four year competition between Nolasco and Garza and their quest for the "Overpaid Waste of Space" championship. Initially, Nolasco had a big lead after Garza posted a respectable 1.4 WAR in 2014 but Matt stormed back into the discussion with a horrific -1.7 WAR last season. Current standings: Nolasco: -0.8 rWAR Garza: -0.3 rWAR I suspect this one will go down to the wire.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    I don't necessarily disagree but I think making the decision today is a mistake. Give Polanco another year, let Dozier help the 2016 Twins win ballgames, and then reevaluate next November. There's no reason to force a decision today, as it will significantly hurt the current MLB squad and its ability to compete in 2016.
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    Maybe 2018-2020. Maybe. But what you're arguing right now is that a guy whose MiLB career OPS is .752 will perform better than a guy whose 2015 MLB OPS was .751. That's... Unlikely, to be generous. Outlandish, to be more realistic.
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    "Sell high" shouldn't be uttered by a team that is attempting to compete for a postseason berth and has no viable replacement at the position. Sheesh, you guys. This isn't a video game. There's no way Polanco even comes close to replacing Dozier's production in 2016. Are the Twins trying to win baseball games or an award for the best farm system in baseball?
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    Definitely. Any team that wins over 90 games has some luck on its side but overall, many of the 2000s teams were snakebit. They managed to win 90+ games multiple times and lost an elite player in two of those seasons. In particular, the 2010 season still irks me. Man, that team could have been something else. They were stacked top to bottom in the lineup, lost their best hitter, and still won 94 games. What were they with a healthy Morneau? A 97-98 win team? It's hard to see that team get swept by the Yankees with Justin on it. Hell, the same thing goes for the 2006 squad. Is there any way the Twins fail to make it out of the ALDS with Santana and Liriano pitching twice?
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    Absolutely. The stuff MacPhail did right shouldn't be overlooked.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    While I agree that Meyer can still turn into a big asset out of the bullpen, your bolded statement is... No. Just no. A shutdown starter is several magnitude more valuable than a shutdown reliever.
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    Yep, I remember the team breaking camp with those guys. Pretty funny in hindsight. And to be fair about Bartlett/Kubel, Ryan wasn't in charge of the team at that time. They were horrible decisions but can't really be pinned on Ryan (and are a great example why I'm leery of Antony ever sitting in the GM chair).
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    Thankfully, I think a modern comp is hard to find because front offices are too smart to give a 1991 Jack Morris the equivalent of $20m today. I think the 2014 Bartolo Colon contract is a good example of what usually happens when you give an old pitcher too much money. He didn't kill the Mets but was below average (just as Morris was five out of his final seven seasons).
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    I've mentioned several times that Ryan didn't do enough on the trade front, particularly in midseason (and he didn't have much free agent money in the 2000s)... But did the 91 team even make a trade at the deadline? I don't believe they did. My point is addressing the free agent situation leading into 1991, specifically the lauded Morris acquisition. MacPhail threw what easily could have been bad money (maybe even likely to be bad money) at Morris but got lucky so people hold it up as some kind of gold standard. Coupled with the much more solid Davis pickup and a huge dose of luck, the team won it all. Inversely, Ryan threw bad money at Hunter in 2015 (but threw very good money at Rogers in 2003) and has been panned for it by a huge segment of the fanbase. Am no way am I absolving Ryan for some of those lackluster 2000s trade deadlines but it's only fair to judge both men and their actions by the same standard.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    Sure, the 91 team tried to win. So did most of the 2000s teams... But the 91 team had a lot of luck on its side while the 2000s teams... Not so much. The Morris/Rogers comparison illustrates that better than anything else, I think. Could some of the 2000s teams have done more to win? Yeah, maybe, especially midseason... But if luck ain't on your side, you're pretty much screwed. Remove one of Morris, Puckett, Mack, Davis, or Erickson from the 91 squad and they do not win the World Series. Add a healthy Liriano or Morneau and who knows what happens to the 2006/2010 squads. Hell, add a dead cat bounce (maybe a 120 OPS+) Torii Hunter to the 2015 squad and maybe they go all the way, as unlikely as that seems today. Acquisition X was a good idea because it worked. Acquisition Y was a failure because it didn't work, even though it was more statistically likely to succeed than Acquisition X. Not trying to take anything way from MacPhail or give Ryan undue credit, just trying to be fair here. Results-based judgment only works in hindsight.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    Possibly... But play that Morris season out ten times and I suspect the majority of the time it's condemned as a bad, maybe even terrible, deal. And the inverse probably applies to the Rogers deal. Money isn't everything. The Morris deal happened to work out and that's great, games six and seven were the greatest Twins moments of my life (even better than 87 for me)... But apply the Morris thinking to today and we'd absolutely crucify Ryan for giving a formerly good (not great) 36 year old pitcher a boatload of money. Half this board would have pitchforks in hand storming 1 Twins Way for that move (see Hunter, Torii). With that said, I wish Ryan would have spent more money more intelligently in past years but it's unfair to apply a different standard to Ryan because a move didn't pan out than to MacPhail because a similar move did work.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    Heheheheh. Again, the lack of midseason moves were frustrating and I agree more should have been done. No arguments about previous trade deadlines and how little action was taken to shore up deficiencies. But as I pointed out with the Rogers/Morris comparison, praising the Morris acquisition as some kind of "WE'RE GONNA WIN TWINS" move unrivaled in the history of Minnesota sporting clubs is a revisionist take on the deal. It was a good move but mostly because it worked, not because it was the modern day equivalent of signing Clayton Kershaw. Because, on paper, the 2003 Rogers acquisition should have paid better dividends. It didn't and that's baseball.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    And before we say one more word about Jack Morris, take a moment to mull over the 2003 acquisition of Kenny Rogers. A guy with a career 109 ERA+ to that point, coming off a 123 ERA+ season. He pitched his way to one of his worst seasons with a 99 ERA+ in 2003. 1991's Jack Morris had a career ERA+ of 108 going into the season and was coming off an 89 ERA+ season (and hadn't posted an ERA+ of over 100 in three seasons). He pitched his way to a career year with a 125 ERA+ in 1991. But but but! Rogers was old, right? Well, he went on to post four more seasons of better than average ERA+, peaking with an ERA+ of 133 in 2005. Jack Morris never completed a season with a 133 ERA+, FWIW. Rogers did it at age 40. Morris? He posted one 101 ERA+ season with Toronto, pitched two way below average seasons after that, and was out of baseball at age 39. Kenny Rogers, three seasons previous to 2003: 551 IP, 104 ERA+ (one bad injury season sandwiched between two very good >110 ERA+ healthy seasons) Jack Morris, three seasons previous to 1991: 655 IP, 89 ERA+ Kenny Rogers, three seasons following 2003: 611 IP, 117 ERA+ Jack Morris, three seasons following 1991: 534 IP, 85 ERA+ So, luck.
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    While I'm not defending the lack of impact trades during the 2000s, this is a point worth making and is too often overlooked when people talk about the 1991 season. The 91 team started off abysmally and then caught fire. Sure, the team was constructed pretty well but there was a lot of luck involved with that squad. Jack Morris went into the 91 season having posted an ERA+ of 97, 79, 89 the previous three seasons. He wasn't a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. Davis was a decent, not great, player who played out of his friggin' mind, posting the second best season of his career in 91. While there is no comparable to Davis in recent years, the Morris acquisition wasn't terribly different than the Santana (and even possibly Nolasco) acquisition. Basically, the 91 season was the result of a few good moves that turned into great moves in hindsight, partially through dumb luck (particularly in the case of Morris). That happens and that's why it can be important to take risks occasionally. You never know when the stars will align. On the other hand, the 2000s Twins had (mostly) the opposite luck. In 2006, they lost Liriano, their best pitcher and, at the time, an unstoppable force. Radke was pitching with... Well, I'm not really sure what was attached to his shoulder at that point but it wasn't an arm. In 2010, they lost what may have been the best player in baseball in Justin Morneau, a guy on his way to a 10 WAR season (!). Again, I'm not absolving the Twins for some of their past moves but winning it all takes some luck, often a lot of luck. The 1991 Twins had it; the 2000s Twins did not. Does the 1991 team win if Scott Erickson goes down after eight starts? No. Well, that's basically what happened to the 2006 squad. Does the 1991 team win if Davis receives a concussion mid-season? Well, that's what happened to the 2010 squad. We talk about luck/unluck in its various forms on this board all the time... It's only fair to point out just how bloody unlucky the Twins were at times in the 2000s. In what were possibly their two best seasons - 2006 and 2010 - they lost an elite player. Not a good player, an elite one. Someone worth 8+ wins over a full season. And before we praise the 1991 offseason too much and use that as a benchmark from which to grade current offseasons, we should acknowledge that everything went right for that team. Not most things... Pretty much everything.
×
×
  • Create New...