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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    I doubt there is a formula. I'm just saying, their ages are deceptive when compared directly. College coaches are mostly trying to win ballgames, not waste the little time they have these guys on long term development.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    Can't really compare a college pick to a 16 year old signing in terms of development age. Astudillo may be a year younger than garver, but he's already been playing pro baseball 11 years now.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    I think it was just precautionary, as Sands had suffered a few minor injuries late in his 2018 FSU season.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    That 40 man spot already went to DeJong.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Amen to that. Some of the defensive configurations during the later years of Gardy were awful.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Sure. It's also possible that, at age 38, he might perform significantly worse than that, even with fresh legs. If they work him into a game or two or a few out there I won't complain. I'm just happy that they aren't trying to force him out there everytime we don't have a DH, as I feel Gardy or Molitor would have.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    I suppose a magic 8 ball might work as well.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    I'd argue that it's much more likely the Mariners only gave him 9 starts in the field over 2 years because he's terrible out there, not because they were trying to keep his legs fresh.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    Having been DFA'd before, Austin can refuse an outright assignment. Of course, he could accept it. But given we have to clear both those hurdles to keep him in the organization, I'm tentatively presuming that the odds are very high that he won't be back. I just can't imagine that there isn't a team with no hope of competing this year that won't take a free asset like Austin.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Yeah, perhaps with a crystal ball the manager could predict when an otherwise far superior fielder is going to have a poor game, and he could swap in Cruz that day. Without that crystal ball you can only go off their actual overall ability.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    Nelson Cruz would make Grossman look like Buxton if he were allowed to bring a glove out there, IMO. I mean, the guy is 38 years old, and was not a good outfielder in his prime. I'm a fan of utilizing players strengths to the max, and minimizing their weaknesses to the max. I think the way you do that with Cruz is by letting him carry a bat to the plate as many times as possible, without giving him a glove.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    I don't agree that it's too close to call. I think the defensive drop from any of our outfielders to Cruz is massively bigger than the offensive drop from Cruz to them. It's not like Rosario, Kepler or Cave are carrying a Butera-esque bat. But, that's my personal opinion. I can't prove it. I think your post was great, despite my slight disagreement of the last sentence.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    My point isn't to try to determine if any of these guys should go down instead of Austin. My point is that they have plenty of other reasonable options, so this was likely the plan from the start. It just surprises me is all. I'd like to see better mid and long term planning from them. Finding a way to keep him around for 5 plate appearances was pointless.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    There are also position players that have options. I have no idea if it will or won't be a season altering decision, but I think Austin has a fair amount of potential and wish they would have kept him around until an injury gave him a chance at everyday at bats.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    What if Cruz or Cron go down next week? Or the week after that? Or next month? I think the odds of him both passing waivers AND accepting an outright are slim enough to practically discard. They didn't have to DFA him. They could have sent down someone with options and called up a pitcher on the 40 man. This tells me this was the plan the first time they needed a pitcher, which I don't get.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    I'm surprised as well, I guess I was conditioned over the years by Gardy and Molitor, both of whom seemed to place very little value on defense. Though for me, it's a pleasant surprise. And yes, totally fine to agree to disagree. I fully expect I'll be in the minority on this issue.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    If this was the plan, it makes rostering him to start the season an odd decision. They had to know it wasn't going to take long before a short start was going to deplete the bullpen for a day.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    I guess I don't understand what would allow him to play acceptable defense in NL parks, but not in a full time role. He's either passable as an outfielder, or he's not. If he is, that's awesome, that makes him even more valuable than we bargained for. But, I don't believe he is. I believe his position is DH, and DH only.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Because he could give it all back and more in the field. I know many don't agree that defense is just as important as offense, that's fine. I'm glad the FO and manager does though. ST performance means very little to me. If Cruz could play passable outfield, why hasn't he the last few years? His bat would have had even more value there than DH. If his bat+defense is better than our other outfielders bat+defense, then he should be an everyday outfielder, not just in NL parks.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    I'm glad this regime values defense. I love Cruz's bat, but he'd be a disaster in the outfield, at this point in his career.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    I actually didn't even notice that it was Doogie "reporting" the initial call up. I would have waited for a second source had I noticed.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    From my post above yours, you can see I have no problem with Littell getting the call- as long as it's a one and done shuttle- but I think Stewart would be a fair argument as well. Unless he's unavailable and I missed it.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    They played pretty sloppy against KC as well. The wins absolutely count, but against a good team that series, they might be 2-4 right now.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Every team needs AAAA starters that can be shuttled until such time as a legit prospect is ready for a full time role. I don't think Littel has much upside at all (a few posters disagree), but he's not so awful that he can't be useful as a AAAA shuttle guy.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Sure, but he's not starting in AAA, he's relieving. That tells me he's been converted to reliever because that's what the FO has decided he is, not as some short term sacrifice to help the big club compete, as I interpreted Seth to be saying.
×
×
  • Create New...