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
    How on earth do you unintentionally grab and hold for 30 seconds someone's wrists? Keep your hands to yourself, is it really so hard? There does not need to be actual harm to charge assault. People are charged all the time, without even touching the person. There only needs to be threat of (can be implied, doesn't have to be explicit) and ability to inflict harm.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    And yet, it would be absurd to say that, because of the time discrepancy, that your father in laws cardiac arrest didn't happen, do you agree?
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Holding someone's wrists without their permission is assault. Regardless of the duration or level of force. I'm not saying those things don't matter, but they change only the degree of assault, not whether it is or isn't assault.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    But sexual assault doesn't need to end? My problem is you aren't holding him to the same standard as you are her. Why doesn't his life need to be ruined, like you say hers should be, if he's guilty?
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Well that's just factually incorrect. That's not even close to what it means to be accomplice to a crime. What exactly was Nick supposed to do? If he goes to the police and says his friend told him she was assaulted 2 years ago, they are going to say, "okay, tell your friend to come file a report. Until she does, there is zero we can or will do. " What did that accomplish? Destroying a friend's trust for absolutely no gain whatsoever. I hope, for their sake, a friend of yours never confides anything personal and private to you.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    It depends on the context. In this case, he's learning it first hand from the accuser- and was likely asked not to share it. There are other contexts where it would be appropriate to go to the authorities.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    Well yeah, the who knows aspect is why I said possible. If he hits his ceiling he could earn as much as $45 million over his arbitration years. Archer is owed $33 million.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Have you considered that the accuser might have asked Nick, and others that she told, to keep it private until she was ready to come forward?
  9. Mr. Brooks
    In her statement, she says she screamed- singular. As far as I can tell, she never claims, or implies that she screamed continuously for 10 minutes.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    So, if he's proven innocent (which is impossible by the way, you can't prove a negative), she should lose everything and have to live on the streets? But, if he's proven guilty, he shouldn't lose everything and have to live on the streets? Just a moderate punishment, that won't really affect his quality of life in any meaningful way? Waiting for more evidence is a totally fair stance, but statements like they above show your complete lack of objectivity regarding this matter.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    With Archers cheap contract, it's entirely possible that Sano would cost them more than Archer. In other words, they already have a guy for pennies on the dollar. Why trade him for a guy who could make more?
  12. Mr. Brooks
    I'm not sure I consider anything from Doogie to be more than pure speculation.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    Where are you seeing that?
  14. Mr. Brooks
    I don't have technical expertise, so perhaps this isn't plausible. But, regarding the inability to merge breaking news threads into articles, can't you just pre-date the article to 1 minute before the breaking news thread, so that when merged, they merge into the article?
  15. Mr. Brooks
    My whole point is that they shouldn't have a bias. Saying they should give internal prospects a shot over outside players is the argument that seems biased to me. Simply being "our" prospect shouldn't carry any additional weight when evaluating whether a guy can contribute or not.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    The win came at a price. Fractured ankle for Easton.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Yikes. Yeah, depth is not this teams strength.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Maybe, but probably not. One guy, even as good as Darvish, can't turn a rotation from poor to great. If a prospect emerges, it likely won't be a difference maker until 2019. Remember how much Berrios struggled his first season, and he was a better prospect than any of the pitching prospects we have now.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    I'm not sure I'd call Frazier a helium guy. That's a term for guys who rise high very quickly. Frazier was a #5 overall pick, whose prospect status has been pretty consistent since.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    Every pitcher who has ever played the game, including the all time greats, have had 15 inning stretches of awful performance. It's too small to have any meaning whatsoever. But again, we'll agree to disagree on that point. To your second point, he is not a guy that they drafted. It's a new FO. They should evaluate him exactly the same as they would a random prospect on a random team. If they think he has a good chance, they should give him a shot, if they don't, they shouldn't. The fact that he was drafted by the Twins should not play a role in the decision. Clearly they don't think he had much chance of helping.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    I can only speak for myself, but I don't think everyone who is proposing packages necessarily want to do those trades, but rather just being realistic about what the cost would be. Archer is too costly for my tastes. I'd rather get Cole and a top FA.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    We'll agree to disagree. 15 starts would still be a very small sample size, perhaps enough to learn something, but probably not. 15 relief appearances is for all practical purposes the same as zero, as far as any evaluatorial information goes.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    I only meant it in the sense of giving prospects a shot that they don't feel should get one, just because it's "their" guy. I keep hearing people say stuff like, "you'd think they'd at least give them a shot before they lose them, since it's their prospect." I didn't mean it in an us/ours vs. them/theirs adversarial sense.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    I'm on the same side of the coin as you. It shouldn't matter where the prospect came from- I was responding to someone saying Bard should have gotten a shot over someone from outside the organization, because he's our prospect.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    These are not their prospects. These are the previous regime's prospects. We need to keep that in mind. I'm sure a few years from now, when guys they actually chose and groomed are coming up, the process will be different.
×
×
  • Create New...