Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! 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
    Ok, well in that case, the contacts they all sign should be very close. I doubt it, but we'll see.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    And yet, as far as I can tell, baseball is the only sport in which a segment of fans actually enjoy the fact that calls are often inconsistent, unpredictable, and even intentionally wrong. In my opinion, the rules should be the rules, and they should be enforced as fairly, and as accurately as reasonably possible. The rules shouldn't vary based on which official is making the call. And where do we draw the line? What if one umpire decides that, to him, anything 4 inches or less foul, is actually fair? What if another umpire decides that a baserunner has to occupy the base for a full second before he's tagged, otherwise he's out? I think the rulebook states what the strike zone is. I don't think it says anywhere that a strike is supposed to be anywhere the ump decides it is. Because of that, I think it's the traditional way that is wrong, not any future attempt to correct it.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Everything except ERA, because ERA is dependent on too many things that are out of the pitcher's control. If the argument is that he's the best of the class, but the money and years scare you, you might be right. If the argument is that he's not even the best of the class, then I just don't think you'll find anyone in the industry, or even many outside, who will even acknowledge your argument.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    Which stats are you using to determine that Darvish is not better than the other 3 options? I don't think it's even a debate in the industry that Darvish is s tier above those other 3.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Sorry, but that's just not a realistic trade package for Archer. Granite is not going to be a starting outfielder. His best shot is to bounce around as a 4th/5th OF'er, or AAAA depth. And TB has no interest in Hughes, not even if we ate the salary.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Aside from Boston and New York, how often are baseball stadiums filled to capacity during the regular season? I think there is room to go down before demand overtakes supply. More likely, IMO, teams find a tipping point where all the empty seats are more than made up by the inflated tickets that are sold. I'm not sure where that number lies, but I'd imagine it's in the 75-80% capacity range.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    They can work out a trade with Miami if they want to send him to the minors.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not trying to argue if it was the right selection or not, or even why they took him. I'm simply suggesting that, IMO, not one thing has changed since his selection. And therefore, whatever their plan for him was shortly after the draft, it's unlikely that plan has changed at all in the months since. True, it's unlikely that they specifically targeted him before the draft (although entirely possible). But it's also unlikely that they decided to take him without some kind of plan for him. And I don't believe they took him in reaction to losing Burdi either. They had already cleared Burdi's spot before the draft. Keeping both, or neither, were options. I also don't believe that Reed, Rodney, and Duke were impulse buys that changed whatever plan Kinley fit into. Sure, they may not have known that they'd get those specific players. But I think it's likely that their plan included three guys for those roles. And I don't think Kinley was pegged for any of those three roles, so I fail to see, outside of an injury or poor throwing session that we're not aware of, what could have changed since shortly after the draft that would change how Kinley fit into their plans.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I'm not saying he'll make the roster. None of us know what their plan was when they took him. What I do know, and what I'm trying to say, is that they had a plan, and i don't think anything has changed to alter that plan. If the plan is that he doesn't make the roster, then that was always the plan. These guys are at the top of their profession. They don't just randomly acqire guys without some kind of plan.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    But why would a player agree to that, when he knows he can just accept a guaranteed contract from a different team? That's the reason you don't, and never will see those types of contract become widespread. Any team making an offer like that knows they have no chance, because another team will just guarantee the same contract.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    But you said it didn't pan out. I don't think their plan for him (whatever it is) has changed since draft day. It's not like they weren't planning on signing guys when they drafted Kinley. Obviously we didn't know the names then, but I'd guess they planned on signing guys x,y, and z for roles x,y, and z before they drafted Kinley, so I just don't see what would have changed to make them change whatever they had planned for Kinley.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    What would they have seen from him since the draft to make them feel this way? Have they even watched him throw since the draft? Doubt it.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    I thought the argument for a shorter deal is that he'll be bad after the first 2 or 3 years? If that's the case, how would he have a chance to sign another long term deal, if he signs for 3 now?
  14. Mr. Brooks
    He's already got 125 innings in AA. I'm guessing the FO expects him to be called up to the majors by then.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    No, it is a legal matter. If the language of the contract doesn't dictate that he has to give money back, then he shouldn't give money back. This is how contracts work.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    It's a business contract. There is no decency or indecency, only fulfilling the terms of the contract or not fulfilling them. And I haven't read the language regarding the signing bonus, so I couldn't possibly say one way or another whether he should or shouldn't have to return any of it.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Not really. I'm hoping that Nasser guys future endeavors go horribly.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    They only need to stay down for about 3 weeks to get an extra year of service time. You might be thinking of the Super 2 cutoff, which saves a team money, it doesn't extend team control.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    The footwork is a problem moving to the other side of center, not between guard and tackle. I agree it shouldn't be a huge deal. I'm just saying, if they have a choice, might as well leave him on the right side, where he's comfortable.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    But the Jags weren't just the best against the pass. They were the best by an insane margin. The gulf from 1st to 2nd is as wide as the gulf from 2nd to 13th is.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    I think he's assuming Newman retires, and the disaster guy is Alexander. Edit: Just realized he pluralized disaster, so maybe not.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    It's because your footwork is all opposite. That sounds silly, but at that level you have to run on muscle memory to keep up, as a half step is the difference between all pro and out of football. I think they all are capable of switching sides, some guys are just able to commit the footwork to muscle memory quicker. If they need a new guard either way, I'd rather they just keep him on the side he's played for years.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    Don't agree at all. This offense was held back by his limitations. He consistently underthrows guys that have their guy beat, and often locks in on a guy while someone else was open. Nobody can be sold on Bridgewater, we haven't seen him since his injury, but even if Bridgewater doesn't have it, they can sign another Keenum type backup to turn it over to. Keenum played well because he was in the right situation. What we saw from Bradford week 1 is what this offense is capable of with even an average QB.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Well before you said he was really good. He was the 248th highest paid player in football this year. I guess my standard for a really good player is a much smaller percentile of the league than you. It's a small contract for a FA player. If the Jags are only good against the pass because teams don't need to pass against them, that seems like a really dumb strategy, since they made it just as far as we did. I could see that argument if they were 3-13 or something.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Curious why they want Remmers at LG instead of RG? He looked brilliant in his start at RG, awful in 2 games at LG.
×
×
  • Create New...