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

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
    That list on mlb.com is not a complete list. It's a list of teams top 30 prospects that are eligible.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    OK that makes sense.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    This is from Baseball America: "Teams must file their 40-man rosters by Nov. 20, and only those not at the full allotment of 40 may select players." Its somewhat vague, but if teams are allowed to open spots after Nov 20, then I don't see the purpose of the rule.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    Mejia should be in the rotation opening day, IMO. But even then we probably don't need to open any more spots, unless the new guys think Duffey belongs in the rotation. Berrios May Gibson Mejia Santiago Of course, this assumes they trade Santana and don't find a starter in FA. If they hold on to Erv or bring in a guy with a guaranteed spot then I could see needing to open a spot.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    He's a guy who seemed to have been in over his head as GM- and that's not really his fault. That is Terry Ryan's fault picking him as successor. He does have a reputation for being good at the things he's done since then. But, it makes me wonder why he was let go. Was he not as good or as involved in those things as we've heard? I guess I'd have to go back and look at who were giving him credit for doing a good job? Was there anyone objective, or was it only people inside the bubble like Terry, St. Peter and Pohlad? Or, we've heard the plan was to use a year to lay out the vision and evaluate from there. Was there a specific part of the vision that Smith couldn't get behind? I presume we'll never know for sure, but it does make me curious.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Right, but I don't think they are allowed to use those spots on Rule V picks.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    Ruth didn't play in the Yankees milb system. He came over from the Red Sox. You might not have heard about that.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Small market teams have done it too.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    That is an impressive feat by the training staff if they went 3 straight years using only 5 starting pitchers.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    It also says a lot about the other veterans on the team.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    I don't think they can waive a player to make room for a Rule V pick anymore. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a deadline for those moves affecting the Rule V draft, which is why they released Plouffe the day they did.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Baker was a pretty good pitcher. I'd be thrilled if Gibson turned into Scott Baker. They can't all be aces.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    They named his hometown after him? This guy is a legend!
  14. Mr. Brooks
    Yes, previously the worst team got the biggest pool. The Twins chose not to go over cap before. There was no disadvantage preventing them from doing so.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    I think you might have that backwards. I'd think it would be the teams that would want that extra spot. I think that is something the players would fight. Adding another roster spot could theoretically eat into the pie. You have a few teams that would just add that much more payroll, but I think many more teams would budget less per spot so their payroll stays the same. It's the players ALREADY in MLB that have the bargaining power- as shown by the unions continued indifference towards going to bat for minor leaguers. Adding another roster spot is akin to a minor pay raise to minor leaguers, it wouldn't be seen as much of a benefit to those already established in MLB. And, that raise comes out of the current MLB players pockets, not the owners.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    Maybe defense is more about the players than the coach? Maybe this bill we've been sold of the defensive whisperer that makes teams better defensively just from his mere presence wasn't quite accurate? Or, maybe it's something that is going to take years, not months to fix? I don't have any answers, just wondering out loud. I guess I'd be curious to see what the Bulls defense looked like post Thibs- was it really his scheme or just good defensive players? I mean Rose, Noah, Dieng, these are guys that were considered solid defensive players coming until the league, were they not? I think the biggest immediate help would be if Dunn is capable of being anything better than a liability on offense, because he looks to be a natural defender. The scary part is that the Wolves schedule has been pretty soft so far. This is the part of the schedule that should have gotten the Wolves off to a running start.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Though in the end you might be right that everyone else gets tendered, I don't think that means that these decisions were already made. It could just mean that Plouffe was the only obvious one, so they made it right away to give him a head start in FA, and to have his 40 man spot available for Rule V protections. Santiago- they could have wanted more time to see what the interest in Ervin looks like. And also to see what the FA market looks like in terms of years and $. Bullpen guys- might have wanted more time to see what the prices look like, and to evaluate internal options. Escobar is probably an obvious tender, as is Gibson. Edit: Also, and I could be wrong, but I think with players who are a consideration to come back at a cheaper price, it makes more sense to non tender as opposed to releasing. I'm not sure any of these guys fit that possibility though, perhaps Santiago.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Sounds to me like it hurts the Twins. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like each team gets pretty much the same cap. The Twins lose the advantage of having a larger pool for last place.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    I think the argument is for the league with the better interleague record to get HFA, not the team.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    This number refers to the minimum stay required. I'd like to see it even lower. 5 or 7 days.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    As you know, I'm not a believer in Gibson. Never was, even during his 15 season. But yeah, his tender price is so insanely low for a starting pitcher that I think you have to bring him back. If he had the $8 million tag, I'd say it's an easy non tender.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    Regression to the mean would likely mean matching his xFIP- which would be a bad thing. I think it would be more accurate to say that we need to hope he defies regression to the mean as he did in 12 through 15.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    They should use best record, weighted by league interleague record. Something like wins multiplied by their league's interleague winning percentage. This way, a team with a better overall record by one game doesn't necessarily get home field over the team from the vastly superior league. And vice versa.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    So because you are in favor of the moves that means that anyone who isn't is a "hater"? I mean, I'm in favor of the moves as well, but I don't feel my opinion on it is superior to those who disagree.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    The decision not to call up Walker when rosters expand was 3 full weeks before they settled on Falvey. If they would never make a roster move that Molitor would disagree with, then why not just make Molitor the GM? Molitor is the field manager. He didn't make the call on Walker. On what basis would he? Googling his stats?
×
×
  • Create New...