Jump to content
Our top free agent ranking is up to 75 names; click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mr. Brooks

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,256

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 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 Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    As a starting point in an attempt to estimate an unknown market value, sure. Treating it as gospel that you won't move an inch off, even after entering the market and finding that your assigned values are not competitive in the actual marketplace, no. Silly, in any business.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    Of course. I must have missed that context in your original post.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    I don't think it's anything as nefarious as trying to trick the fanbase. I think they are just so locked into this silly "assigned value", that they end up making unrealistic offers and not budging on them.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    While Aaron Gleeman is probably more plugged into the league than most of us here, he's not a reporter.He's not beholden to only reporting facts, he also freely gives uninformed opinions just like all of us do. I wouldn't necessarily assume that everything he says is rooted in inside information.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    No, I can't concede that, because I don't know the timeline of when each team made their offer. I simply said it's possible that it was at one time. Either way, it no longer is, so it's not moot. As far as I can tell from reports, their offer still stands, and it's not a serious offer at this point.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    I don't think HR power is on anyone's list of critiques when it comes to Rosario, so I'm not sure how that will make anyone look bad. His flaws are on base percentage, plate discipline, baserunning, and defense. I'm not sure juicing or dejuicing the ball fixes any of those.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    I don't believe for a second that the Twins think their offer is the highest. It may have been a serious offer at one time, I'm not familiar with the timeline of when the 3 teams made their offers. It no longer is.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Yes, in this case they have to be the high bidder to have any chance, because of his preference for the other two teams.Every situation is different, that is the reality of this one. They have zero chance of winning this one without the high bid. Making an offer with zero chance of being accepted is not a serious offer. I don't understand how that's controversial. EDIT TO ADD: They don't have to win the bidding to be serious. They could have the high bid and still lose out. But coming in below the high bid gives them zero chance and wasn't serious.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    The Twins offer has to be the highest because it's not one of his preferred destinations. Atlanta can offer a bit less because he played there and wants to return, and Washington can offer a bit less because he has family in Virginia. They aren't "devoting" $85M to Donaldson any more than I'm devoting $85M to him, because it has zero chance of being accepted.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Relative to what? MLB Traderumors offseason projections? Fun to read, perhaps, but completely meaningless. It's not even the top offer, even though we're already behind Atlanta and Washington for preferred destination. Making an offer that's not going to be enough isn't a serious offer, even if it's "a lot of money".
  11. Mr. Brooks
    So another FA that they make a not actually serious offer to. I don't understand why they do this.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Well first, statistically only about 1/3 of those guys will actually get to and stay in the majors. So that immediately cuts your list from 5 guys to 1 or 2. First base is already open. And, we know from Buxton's history that it's likely there will be plenty of OF opportunities when he's unavailable. And finally, Rosario can be traded if one of these guys looks legit and is pounding on the door.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    I'm positing that perhaps last year's improvement was driven by a specific and sustainable change he made, either mechanical or approach. If that's the case, then the last 5 years aren't very meaningful. Only the numbers from the point he made that change onward are. I don't personally know if he made an adjustment, or just got lucky in a 73 inning sample size. But I trust that the FO has done some homework where that is concerned. This still leaves 2 spots for internal options. Bailey isn't blocking anyone. Every team needs league average guys to fill out their team, even the big spenders.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    Wallner and Larnach are outfielders. Kirilloff is an outfielder or first baseman. Nobody is going to put these guys at DH in their 20's, when they are perfectly capable of playing in the field. Again, I have zero interest in Castellanos, but he's 100% not going to block any of these guys at DH, with the possible exception of Rooker.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    It's not just potential. Even in limited time, with some offensive struggles Buxton has been more valuable than Rosario. Since the start of 2016: Buxton 9.7 bWAR Rosario 7.9 bWAR Being the best defensive player in baseball has a lot of value. When you combine that with the additional upside, which Rosario doesn't have much of, Buxton has multiple times more trade value right now.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    $3M is guaranteed no matter what, but it's not worst case. He has very easy to hit escalators, that don't require him to be good (just healthy enough to pitch a few games), and add up quickly. I'd say worst case is he's terrible and we're out $12M before the sample size is large enough to move on.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    That's fair, but everyone is different. For me, the 2000's are barely a footnote in Twins history. 1991 is what I'll remember (I was a tad young for '87).
  18. Mr. Brooks
    I'm fine with aggresive. To me, Larnach for Archer goes beyond aggressive into reckless territory. Look at his numbers last year, he's a total reclamation project. Without vast improvement, he's no better than the Thorpe/ Smeltzer/ Dobnak crowd. Larnach is a borderline elite prospect. Fangraphs update has him above Kirilloff. I'd want something closer to a sure thing if I'm trading Larnach.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Fair, but a couple of points. 1) We're fans of the Twins, not those teams. 2) How many of the other playoff teams were swept 3-0 in the first rounds? It's not unfair if some have the opinion that we were starting from a place of needing more reinforcements than those teams were. At this point it looks like we're going to have to hope that the reinforcement comes from within. It's possible, but not guaranteed, so we'll see. I'm disappointed, but at the same time still willing to give this FO the benefit of the doubt, for now. Another sweep in the first round will start to chip away at that.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    32 walks in 53 postseason innings tells me that any October success he had was mostly luck, and isn't necessarily likely to repeat itself.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Plus I think the suggestion was he'd be moved to DH after Cruz retires. Retired players give you zero production, so Castellanos would automatically be giving you more production than Cruz.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    No, I'm not interested in Castellanos, not even a little bit. But if one of our prospects are blocked by Castellanos playing DH, then they aren't a prospect that I'm at all interested in. The only one I can even think of that might have to play DH right out of the gate is Rooker, and he's unlikely (IMO) to ever be more than a AAAA/ bench player anyway.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    But Sano has never played even close to a full season. Nobody is going to pay for a 162 game/ 50 HR Miguel Sano just because that "could" happen. They are going to pay for his most likely outcome, which historically is 95 games, 25 HR, and below average defense that adds up to 1.5 or so bWAR.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    If Archer is the best you can get for Larnach then you just keep Larnach, IMO. I'm not saying you have to "win" every trade, but you don't want to be in a situation where you're taking almost all the risk in the deal. You're essentially eliminating any upside that Archer has if you trade Larnach for him. At that price he HAS to be pretty close to Archer at his absolute best. No thanks. He's a reclamation project, the cost should reflect that.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    5.19 ERA/ 5.02 FIP is #3 at worst? Because that's factually Chris Archer at his worst.
×
×
  • Create New...