Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Brock Beauchamp
    He did little (not nothing) in his career because he had a rare cellular disorder that completely derailed his ability to play baseball through injuries (likely a result of the disease itself, as it causes muscle fatigue). There's a reason he retired at age *28* while sporting a 101 OPS+ despite all those underperforming years as he fought through injury after injury. Come on, are we really holding diseases against players now?
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    I'm all for EC reform and have said it in the past. But I see no issues with how the Senate is constructed, as we *are* a republic. I'd be happy if the EC became representative of the state vote. If a state has 10 votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote, they get six EC votes. That in itself would go a loooong way to fixing the rural/urban divide. Republicans would have to go into places like CA and NY and fight for a handful of votes. Democrats would have to head to places like Alabama, Oklahoma, Montana, etc. and fight for a few votes. No candidate would be allowed to just write off 40%+ of the country and take a win, they'd have to listen to the rest of the country as well, at least to an extent.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    The biggest flaw in this argument is that you're decrying 30% of the population ruling the rest of us while ignoring that if trends truly do continue to move in that direction, cities overwhelm virtually every state worth taking and turn them blue. Under this model, how do Arizona, Texas, Ohio, Florida, et al stay red or even purple? And then you get your way anyway. Sure, you don't get Montana or the Dakotas but you're so dominating the House and Presidency that I don't think it really matters.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    Projecting that kind of thing is part of the problem. We've created such a rift between rural and urban that many rural Americans literally have no choice but to leave for the city. I'm not going to lay blame because I think we all agree where the majority of blame goes for that problem... but urban areas will reach critical mass at some point. Housing will become a combination of too expensive or too remote from a city center to continue growing forever. That will make rural areas more appealing. The sad thing is that this is SOOOOOOO fixable. Now, more than any point in history, it is possible to earn a good living in a rural area because you no longer need to live where you work. What we need is a real bridge between these two groups of people. How do we get there? Dunno, but it's certainly not impossible. There's so much in common and so much that can be gained by everyone that it's pretty idiotic we haven't already created that bridge.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    This sums up my feelings pretty well. I don't need to agree with everything this front office does to appreciate their relative consistency. And that's good enough for me, really. If I agreed with everything the front office did, it likely means that front office is running the team into the ground in some capacity. I want them to be smarter than me and the only way they can prove that is with a pretty lengthy timeline. Thus far, the results have been mixed (Chargois, for example) but those decisions aren't what makes or breaks a baseball team over the long run (provided they remain rare and isolated).
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    While I found the Escobar return satisfactory but not that impressive, it should also be noted that the Twins are long on depth and short on top-flight MiLB talent. Being in the 20s in the Twins system is not necessarily a bad place to be. It's a system that has loads of depth where pretty talented guys can be 18th or 26th in the system (though, again, the system could use a lot more top-end talent).
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    Funny, literally not a single person on this site has argued any of these points in the capacity you're laying them out. Nice strawman!
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    All very fair points about Escobar, though we certainly don't know the specifics. I doubt the Twins lowballed him in yearly value compared to Arizona (seriously, how much lower than $7m do you think they could even go) but it certainly could have been years. Or maybe Escobar simply changed his mind. Hard to say without any real information on the subject but, in the end, the Twins likely lost out in this exchange. As for Darvish, it's hard to look at that situation and say the Twins didn't do the right thing. So what if they didn't give him an escape clause? That's going to look even worse in a year or two if the Cubs have to pay Darvish for one entirely lost season, a good season or two, and then he escapes via a clause (though if I was a front office, I'd welcome escape clauses, as your risk is lower at the front end and higher at the back end of your average contract). As for their approach to the offseason, it will almost certainly change, as Levine has said. He questioned the approach of signing so many one-year contracts in a single offseason and given the 2018 team's performance, I doubt that's the only thing the front office is reconsidering right now.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    A really interesting article on pollsters chasing their tails and ignoring some of the places where good polling is most needed this election: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-some-competitive-races-have-little-to-no-polling-thats-a-problem/
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    To an extent, that makes sense, though. People might be low on supplies that they'd normally buy tomorrow, or the next day, or even the next day. With a hard deadline approaching, all those people cram into the same places to buy the same stuff off their normal schedule. I'm not saying there isn't overreaction in those situations - there most certainly is - but I think it's a combination of a few things at once.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    Really, I couldn't care less who they hire based on merit. I'm only angling for the nickname "Rocco's Rascals" for the day the Twins go deep into the postseason under his tutelage.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    I want everything Rocco Baldelli offers plus some actual managing experience. Minus that, I'll take Rocco Baldelli.
  13. Brock Beauchamp
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    The World Series starts tonight. I'm not sure what you expected them to do between August and November to convince you of anything, good or bad. I'm not saying you're wrong when it all shakes out, only that you're showing a level of impatience during a period of the season when the team literally isn't allowed to do anything (excepting talking to their own players, but that's almost a non-issue for the Twins, as the Twins have no pending free agents that are "must keeps" and are therefore free to lock up their existing players at their leisure).
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    It's not as if the Rays are chopped liver in the analytics department. And Baldelli has experience up and down the organization as a scout, front office liaison, and a coach.
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    It doesn't really work that way with players. Escobar will keep a bit more money in Arizona but only for the 81 games he plays there. For the other 81 games, he'll pay taxes in line with whatever the rate is of the state in which he's playing (play in Dodger Stadium, pay CA taxes). All in all, he probably gains a little money but playing so many games in CA has to chisel into that overall amount quite a bit (~57 games against the Dodgers, Padres, Giants, half of them in CA).
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    The Democrats turned out in 2006 and whooped the House and Senate into shape, going from -30 seats in 2004 to +31 seats in 2006. Why'd they lose so badly in 2004? Well, a few reasons but a major takeaway from that election is that if you run an absolute turd of a candidate at the top of a ticket, you're going to suffer all the way down the ballot. Not that Kerry was a bad guy or anything, he was simply about as inspiring as a soggy sack of potatoes. And that's been a huge problem for the Democrats in the past 20 years. They've run three absolute turd candidates (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) and one exciting candidate (Obama). Gee, shocking how all that turned out, eh? And despite running some really boring-ass candidates, the Democrats still won the popular vote two of those times and came pretty close the third time. So maybe stop running turds at the top of tickets and if that doesn't work, then complain about the system.
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    Any other team. Escobar is currently under contract with the Diamondbacks. They can negotiate with him whenever they please. No one else is allowed to talk to him.
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    Damn. A steal for the D-Backs.
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    Sounds like the Twins might be getting close on Baldelli and I completely support that hire. He's a former player (and a good one, at that) who has worked in both a front office and in the dugout. He's young, to boot.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    Heh, yeah. The way the senate map aligns for the Democrats, a solid blue wave will hold the senate at a slim majority for Republicans. Luck of the draw. In a more balanced year, the Senate could radically change but this year's map makes that all but impossible.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    The Senate plays every six years. This was a bad year for Democrats. Even if there was as massive blue wave, the senate would be maybe 51-49.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    SOMETHING matters, because lots of people vote across party lines on the same ballot. What matters to those people? No idea.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    I honestly don't know, I'm only speculating here. But I do know that where you spend your money depends on who you're trying to reach. If you're trying to reach a person like me (early 40s though technologically speaking, I skew younger than my age due to my profession and general disposition), TV does nothing. You need focused social media and online advertising to reach me at all. We're reaching the point where even people in their mid-30s don't experience traditional media in large numbers. It's not just a "young kids don't like TV" thing any more, fully formed adults have grown up in an age where traditional broadcast and cable TV is an afterthought. I watched a Vikings game last week. It was literally the first broadcast experience I've had in the past... year or so? Maybe even longer. Either way, I have experienced fewer than five broadcast/cable TV experiences in the past three years. I've literally read more scientific journals about things outside my work field than I have experienced live TV shows/games/whatever in the past five years. edit: Wait, not entirely true. I've seen snippets and pieces of Twins games on things like the TD Pub Crawl and while out and about. But it's usually a few minutes here, a few minutes there, and almost never more than an hour of watching overall.
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    I don't know if this is the case but it's entirely possible that Democrats simply aren't spending TV dollars. This isn't 20 years ago when newspapers and TV were the way to connect to voters. If a candidate used those avenues exclusively to sell themselves to voters, people like me would literally never see anything about that politician. I don't watch TV. I don't read physical newspapers. But I still spend a large portion of my day exposed to media. There are lots of ways to spend campaign money nowadays.
×
×
  • Create New...