Brock Beauchamp
-
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
-
When you're playing seven games in five days, pulling one of your relievers out of the pen for a spot start is not an option unless you enjoy pissing off your manager (who should and would get angry about such a decision). The only real option was Gonsalves. Duffey shouldn't have been a consideration.
-
I don't get the Melville thing. I hope there's some roster issue I'm not seeing because Gonsalves should have received that start. But in the grand scheme of things, I'm not going to get too upset about it, either. If Melville gets three starts and Gonsalves is twiddling his thumbs, then I'll become irritated.
-
I simply don't see the upside in extending Dozier. He'll be a marginal second basemen in the next couple of years. He doesn't really profile well at first base, as he's not very tall. He has to keep hitting like this to be a decent DH. Basically, any regression and his value drops like a stone. He doesn't have much room to fall downward. I like the guy but not at the 4/$60m it will probably take to extend him.
-
Aaaaand De Leon is back on the DL. This is looking like a good non-trade. He's basically lost the entire season, pitching only 40 innings.
-
I don't know if this is accurate but I appreciate an actual attempt to explain why Dozier may perform in one situation and not the other with consistency.
-
Bolded first. Proof does not work both ways when you're the person who first made the accusation Dozier was flawed. I will not make the argument that Dozier is a "proven leader" because I don't have evidence one way or the other, nor does anyone else here. And, again, before someone backs up another Dozier isn't clutch argument with men on base numbers, can someone bother to explain to me (and the board) why he's terrible with a man on first base but has an almost identical career RISP OPS to his overall career OPS? Or can we just admit that it's likely a statistical aberration and move on to something else? I'm legitimately open to someone breaking down film and showing their work on this accusation but a stat line ain't gonna cut it because that argument makes no sense. Dozier is literally bad with a runner standing on first base but various levels of underperforms/fine/good/great in all other situations. Does not compute.
-
I can imagine that phone call. Falvey: "Hey Paul, we're thinking about moving up Kyle a day to pi--" *click* *Falvey stares at phone* *Falvey redials* Falvey: "Hey Paul, we're going to start literally anyone not named Kyle Gibson in the doubleheader. I'm randomly picking a name from Rochester right now." Molitor: "Cool."
-
To be fair, the Twins sure could have used a hot Dozier in August and September of 2015 and... *crickets* My point is that you can build any narrative you like but things are usually more complex than a "good/bad when it counts" binary. For all the flak Dozier gets for his RISP performance, his career OPS difference between RISP/Empty Bases is about 20 points. That's an unusual gap but not extreme by any stretch of the imagination. His men on base number has a larger gap but then you have to build a different narrative, one where Dozier is pretty good with runners on second and/or third but bad with only a runner on first. And that doesn't make any sense at all so I'll chalk it up to statistical noise. Maybe Dozier has a different approach when there's a guy standing on first base (and only first base) but I'm going to have to see that broken down with actual analysis to believe it, not a regurgitation of a stat line because, again, it makes no sense whatsoever.
-
I find this narrative rather humorous given the past three weeks. The Twins sold on July 30th and 31st. Dozier came out publicly against this decision. Since that time, the Twins are 15-9. Brian Dozier has a 1.165 OPS.
- 101 replies
-
- 14
-
-
As for Dozier the player, sometimes it's okay to get on-field value from a player and let him walk. Given how the rest of MLB seems pretty set at second base, this is likely the best route for the Twins. You float that guy in trade to see if there are any takers but if he's worth more to you than to anyone else, you let him play out his contract and try to accumulate wins before he leaves.
-
From a fan perspective, "leadership" is a pretty classic example of result dictating process. The Twins are bad, Dozier is a terrible leader (as is everyone else)! The Twins are good, Dozier is a great leader (as is everyone else)! Naturally, you can customize this to your liking. If you don't like Dozier, the Twins are winning despite his leadership. If you like Dozier, the Twins are losing despite his leadership. So maybe it's possible Dozier is just another player who contributes to the clubhouse in his own way but has almost no control over the emotional and mental state of the rest of the team.
- 101 replies
-
- 10
-
-
Agreed. Samardzidiaiaiajiaialol has always had a reputation he simply doesn't deserve. He's paid like a Cueto or Price or Verlander but just isn't good enough to warrant that price tag. Hell, he's a half-step below someone like Anibal Sanchez in his prime. And this may be my imagination but he always struck me as something of a jerk.
-
Yep and yep. If I'm the Tigers and considering a Verlander trade, part of the deal is taking on a large portion of his salary for a better prospect return.
-
It's entirely possible the Tigers are eager to shed payroll. It's also entirely possible they do not care. They ran the team at a loss for a long time. Until I see an indication they operate differently under new ownership, I will assume they'll continue doing what they've done for the past 10+ years. And if they don't care about money, I suspect Verlander isn't even on the table for two reasons: 1. He's the face of the franchise and beloved in Detroit. 2. If he continues to pitch 110 ERA+ seasons, his trade value is higher 10 months from now. By keeping a fan favorite in town and paying him loads of money, they may actually improve the team in both the short- and long-term by holding on to Justin for now.
-
A few things to keep in mind about Verlander outside the huge hurdle of his no-trade clause: 1. Do we have any indication the Tigers even care about shedding payroll? 2. If Verlander continues to pitch moderately well, his trade value actually increases as his contract winds down.
-
Pressly, Grossman, and May are also arb eligible, hence my $5-6m number without Escobar.
-
To be clear, I'm not against acquiring Verlander but the price has to be cheap to offset that contract.
-
No, it's really not. Yeah, a lot of money comes off the books. On the flip side of that coin, existing player salaries also increase, such as Brian Dozier. That wipes out at least $5-6m of that $20m, maybe as much as $7-8m if you retain Escobar. And Verlander is paid $28m so that's a $13-17m payroll increase without doing anything. Does that leave room to spend money? Sure, maybe $10m, which barely gets you one good reliever. I don't see the Twins increasing payroll by more than $25m this season (which they absolutely should do, I'm simply saying that acquiring Verlander eats most of your offseason options).
-
Agreed about the money part but I'm not ready to risk the 2018 season on Verlander's arm, which is a real possibility if you acquire that contract and give up Gonsalves and Gordon. If you have Verlander's contract, okay. So you're not going to spring for a real pitcher in FA because you already have $50m tied up in Verlander and Mauer. You no longer have the option of Gonsalves to fill out the rotation if things go badly. You no longer have the option of Gordon if Polanco takes a step back and you no longer have the option of trading Dozier this offseason. Which means you run out close to the same team in 2018, only the payroll is a lot higher now. That's a gamble I'd be willing to take if the Tigers are eager to shed salary and take a smaller prospect deal... but not for both Gonsalves and Gordon.
-
For the record, I might give up Gonsalves for Verlander. Anything past that, hard pass. And I'd think long and hard about even giving up Gonsalves for a pitcher of Verlander's age under that contract.
-
Pohlads be damned, I'd argue that sounds like an illogical move. If the Tigers want a top 50 (possibly top 30) and a top 100 prospect for the honor of paying Verlander's contract, they can piss right off and go straight to hell. Verlander is good. He's no longer great or anything close to it. He has one elite season out of the past four and he's not getting younger.
-
Twins In Driver's Seat In Wild-Card Race
Brock Beauchamp replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I largely agree. Seeing teams coast into the WC spot was aggravating because there was so little downside to taking the division over the WC (it seemed that often, the team above the WC team wasn't vying for home field past the first series anyway). And it eliminates truly crap situations like what the Yankees pulled on the Twins in 2009, where they were allowed to opt for the first game of the postseason, knowing the Twins had to play a grueling game 163 the night before. Unsurprisingly, the Twins came out flat in that first game and the series was all but won after that point. Adding that extra WC game and punishing WC teams with a playoff is a good way to fix several problems. -
It depends how you view the moves, I suppose. I viewed them as smaller moves to bolster the team in coming seasons when it appeared the team was fading away. Had they moved either Dozier or Santana, I would have considered those more radical moves intended to tank the season and try again next year.
-
Cool, glad to see him up. Good for him.
-
Fair enough. I don't put too much stock into a few games either but I also feel rolling with the wave is appropriate. You don't make radical decisions but you do make smaller decisions based on recent play.
