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
    I'm guessing that's what he meant when he literally said, "the whole league missed it", in his post.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    I like it. I'm not normally a fan of trading assets for relievers - even good ones. But I also don't consider Murphy much of an asset.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    I said he's pitched like a 5th starter SINCE HIS FIRST 5 HOT/LUCKY WEEKS. That is entirely different than saying he IS a fringe fifth starter. It's a fact that is how he's pitched since then. People can have their own opinion of what to make of that fact. Could very well just be a slump. At his age, I don't want to be the one on the hook for finding out.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    I wouldn't DFA either of them, but it should be noted that Buxton is a game changer on defense. Offense is only one half of the game.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Seth, for your final point you say the Twins should trust their system. And, personally I'd love to see some of these guys up, I comment all the time they should bring them up. But, we all have to remember that this is not the new FO's system. They aren't going to blindly trust someone else's work.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Nope. Those revocable trade waivers are not the same kind of waivers that allow you to send a player to the minors.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    That is true, buy only because the Twins screwed up by adding him to rookie ball a few days too early. He should still have an option left if not for that error.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Why would it need to be better than Gonsalves or Romero, AND secondary pieces? If I could get the equivalent of ONE of those guys I pull the trigger without hesitation. Santana has been fringe 5th starter level since his hot/lucky first 5 weeks.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I don't expect Santana to be much better than replacement level next year. He's cooked.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Another typical Stewart outing, 4 bb, 2 k.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    Buxton has options, so there is no need for the FO to play DL games with him.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    A) Anything is possible, but i would think if he's available now he's available in the off-season. I think the price would be significantly greater at the deadline. Not only is he controlled longer, which gives him more value, but the deadline premium is real, IMO.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    But they were in said playoff race at the time they made the promise. I think people are overestimating how easy it would be to tell every future FA that your word means absolutely nothing. The problem isn't keeping their promise. We should all respect and understand that. The problem is making the promise in the first place. And that is a completely legit complaint. I was never a fan of the previous FO doing that either.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    True, but you could have predicted the same thing about a fat 40 year old, 41 year old, 42 year old, and 43 year old with declining velocities and you'd have been wrong to the tune of 10 bWAR. You are likely right in this case, but now that the deal is done he's going to get a few starts to see if they can fix whatever they spotted.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    And I think if they had a significantly better option they'd consider breaking that promise. But, since the other options are only slightly better, they probably see no reason to risk hurting their rep. I personally think Gonsalves would be an upgrade, but if they agreed with me in that regard they never would have signed Colon in the first place.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    Perhaps by his last 4 years before this year? Im guessing the FO thought they saw something in ATL that could be fixed. They may be wrong, of course, but then again it may take more than 2 starts to know.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Colon wasn't an option at this point. I think they promised him a certain minimum number of starts when they signed him. Its fine to be against that move, but its already been made, they aren't going to spoil their rep by breaking promises to a well respected vet like Colon. The choice for now was Gibson vs. Mejia. Colon will get 2 to 3 more starts, and if he's still bad it'll be between Gibson and Santiago at that point.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Well I think they don't want just token depth at AAA, but guys that could actually play a game or 2 if needed in MLB. Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I don't think there are any internal options that fit that bill.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    MLB Pipeline barely had Rooker as a top 100 DRAFT prospect, of course he's not going to be anywhere close to a top 100 overall list.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    Well the Twins have no incentive to take him if they didn't want him. 200k of 4.9m in salary in the deal wasn't going to make or break the deal. Most likely, IMO, is the Twins expect they'll have to call up Garver at some point and like to keep depth at that position in the high minors, so they asked for him in the deal.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    I don't believe that Gibson's last couple starts are any kind of predictor of what his next start will be like. I don't believe that "hot hands" exist. Guys are who they are, with ebbs and flows that are unpredictable. In fact, if you could predict future performance based on a "hot hand", with even a 51% reliability, you could print money betting on sports and retire today.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    I'd sure hope they aren't using as small of a sample size as a month to make any decisions.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    Well your whole argument was based on not developing Gibson- who was far more advanced and polished when drafted than Berrios. Its ok to say the Twins have struggled to develop pitching - they have! But using one of their rare successes against them just spoils your (otherwise legit) argument.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Berrios was drafted and developed internally.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Guys don't improve going from the pen to the rotation though, when guys do improve its the other way around. If he's not good enough to pitch in relief, then he's just not good enough to pitch here.
×
×
  • Create New...