Jump to content
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

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 Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    Nope. Super 2 does not allow the player to achieve free agency sooner. It allows them to begin their arbitration years sooner, effectively giving them a fourth year of arbitration. There is no possible scenario where he'll have enough service time to become a free agent any sooner than following the 2025 season.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe those were options for the arbitrator. I believe their two options under the CBA is to either let the 80 games stand, or reduce it to 60 games.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Silver slugger has always been voted on by the coaching staffs.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    No, Vallimont came back in the Romo trade, for Diaz. Not with Dyson in the Davis trade.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Because he didn't get a full year of service time this season, there is no possible scenario in which the Twins DON'T have team control for an additional 6 seasons after this season.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    It's impossible for him to be a super 2 after next year, as he'll only have 1.X years of service time. It will be a close call as to whether he achieves super 2 status after 2021, when he'll have 2.X years of service time, which is what super 2 consideration requires.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    Players suspended for a failed test are not eligible for the postseason, even if their suspension ends before then.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Eddie Rosario has only an ever so slightly above league average OPS. And that league average includes catchers and shortstops and center fielders. I like Rosario, but I don't feel like his play is worthy of mention for team MVP.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    Not to nitpick, but I've seen this a few times, and I think it should be clarified. MLB did not reduce his suspension. An independent arbitrator did.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    The two possible outcomes were making the postseason, and not making the postseason. Sounds like a 50% proposition to me
  11. Mr. Brooks
    Diplan was removed from the 40 man roster.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    If I didn't know any better (and believe me i do), I'd say this looks an awful lot like you applauding their decision to sign Fernando Rodney.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    You must have me confused with someone else. I've always said that Odorizzi was a steal for Palacios, even at Odorizzi's absolute floor.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    1) I'm glad you think it MAY point to evidence he wasn't masking. But, some posters are suggesting it proves he wasn't. Those are the ones I'm pushing back against. 2) I'm stating nothing with the certainty that you imply I am. I just lean towards masking, until/ unless someone can make a compelling argument why he wouldn't run it past the trainers, which nobody has done. 3) My point may not have been clear. I'm suggesting that he could have stopped using PED's months before the test, but continued taking the masking agent, "just to be safe". Therefore a second test would show very low levels, not because he wasn't masking, but because he'd stopped taking PED's so long before hand, that they'd broken down naturally. 4) Just because testing and handling procedures have been tightened up, doesn't mean a mistake couldn't have been made in this instance. I assume there are humans involved in the process? If so, a procedural error is always a possibility. Do you realize how many surgery patients get tools and sponges left inside of them?
  15. Mr. Brooks
    Escobar was a pending free agent during an 84 loss season. They attempted to sign him to an extension, he said no thanks- which is his right. They got back some pretty good prospects, rather than watch him leave for nothing. Is your problem with that move that you don't think they got enough in return, or that you'd rather he left for nothing? Pressley looks like it could have been a mistake. Every FO makes mistakes. I'm not sure if you're demanding perfection or not. I'm not exactly sure what your problem is with trading 41 year old Fernando Rodney is. He was released by Oakland in May because he was terrible, and would be the worst regular pitcher in our bullpen this year. Jaime Garcia fiasco? Garcia is now out of baseball. In return, we got Zach Littell who has an ERA 48% better than league average, and has 19 scoreless outings in his last 20 appearances. Your criticism of a move that worked out as well as the Garcia one did, combined with you conveniently omitting moves like trading Jermaine Palacios for Jake Odorizzi, signing Nelson Cruz and Marwin Gonzalez, working out valuable extensions for Kepler and Polanco, etc., makes it hard for me not to think you made up your mind early on these guys and nothing they could have done or will do would change your mind.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    It's also not far fetched to suppose that the arbitrators reduced the suspension because there was a procedural error of some kind.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Yes, it's worth starting his clock. We're talking about 20 days of service time here. I hope the decision is because they don't think he's ready. If it's because of 20 days of service time, then this FO has lost all the goodwill they've earned from me - which is a lot. I have no problem with service time games when you're losing 90 games. I have a big problem if it's even a consideration when you have a 100 win team.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Right. And I'm not trying to deal in absolutes. Both are possible. I'm just pushing back at a few posters who have said something along the line of, "the arbitrator reduced his suspension, which proves that he wasn't trying to mask PED's." Unless I'm shown the transcripts of the arbitration hearing (which won't happen), then I'm not prepared to give him that benefit of the doubt, since I don't know why the arbitrators made the decision they did.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    My point is, that's (taking the diuretic long after he's stopped taking PED's) not any more of a stretch than suggesting he took a banned diuretic just to lose water weight and wasn't trying to mask anything.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    Well plenty of posters have suggested that his reduction implies that there must have been some evidence presented that he didn't take PED's, so yes some are posting that. A test that doesn't show PED's just means he didn't have any in his system at that time. It doesn't prove that he hasn't taken them. He could have kept taking the masking agent long after he stopped using PED's, "just to be sure" he flushed it all out.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Water alone doesn't have the same effect as a diuretic. No amount of water would cause you to mask a drug test. Diuretics cause you to flush out stored fluids, whereas excess water just causes you to urinate the excess water that you just drank.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    Correct. It reminds me of when people say the Gophers shouldn't hire coach X because it'll just be a stepping stone job for them. I always say great. That means they built something successful. That's not a bad thing.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    So again, how does one even prove a negative? As far as I know, it's not possible. Perhaps someone can present a hypothetical argument of what "evidence" that he wasn't masking would even look like. If someone can, that might change my perspective. But for now, with proving a negative being practically impossible, I personally believe that a procedural error is far more likely the explanation for the reduction.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    The term "buddy" was straight from the mouth of Pineda, in his original statement.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    If you were to go back and review Channing's posting history regarding Falvey, I think you'd understand Brock's lack of patience. Channing has posted, multiple times, and without sarcasm, that he thinks Falvey is covertly operating under the employment of the Indians, intentionally tanking the Twins in order to benefit Cleveland. If a poster has that view of Falvey, I don't think some pushback is to be unexpected.
×
×
  • Create New...