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
    I don't think he'll be their everyday catcher. Per Tim Brown, Yahoo Sports: It would appear Butera will provide Dodgers organizational depth at catcher, perhaps be 3rd catcher in September. https://twitter.com/TBrownYahoo/status/362669518918660099
  2. Mr. Brooks
    More likely it was the last deal because the Dodgers had a half dozen other backup catchers they were targeting and Butera was their security blanket.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Yeah but that is how Joe hits. I sure hope this is some fluky small sample size, and that the Twins are not seriously going down this road again. Plouffe is a pull hitter, period. The coaching staff should be encouraging him to sit dead red and pull mistakes into the left field seats. Trying to change him into someone he's not by telling him to go the other way would be as stupid as trying to force Mauer to start pulling everything. I'm not saying teach people to pull, or teach people to go the other way. I'm saying that every player has his own unique skill set. Whatever that is, teach to that! Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes, Twins !!
  4. Mr. Brooks
    And what happens if he gets even worse in August and suddenly we literally can't get anything for him? I don't care if a guy is our 50th ranked prospect, that is still better than literally nothing at all. Even if there is a 1% chance that prospect contributes something to the MLB club, that is still 1% more than you get if you don't trade him at all.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    1) On Nathan. Okay, I concede perhaps Nathan doesn't fit the category of "lottery ticket", but that wasn't really my point. Nathan was never a top prospect. If you could go back in time and trade for him BEFORE he made it the MLB with the Giants he would have been considered at best a C level prospect. My point was never to establish Nathan's value at the time of the trade, which is my fault because I was the one who brought him up. My point is that C and D level prospects can occasionally develop into very good ballplayers. So saying that you have to get an A or B level prospect for a guy or you are giving him away for nothing is not true. Liriano was the 3rd player in that deal, he was the throw in. In fact his name wasn't even in the early reports of the trade. He was an electric arm, but had soured on the Giants organization due to health and other concerns. He ABSOLUTELY does fit the definition of a lottery ticket. "The key to the deal was Nathan," Krivsky said. "Bonser was close to the big leagues and Liriano was the third guy in the deal. We tried to get Matt Cain. Our scout Mike Radcliff was very familiar with him, but the Giants wouldn't give him up. But we had good reports about Liriano from Instructional League. '03 trade had major impact on A.J., Nathan | texasrangers.com: News
  6. Mr. Brooks
    I agree. I don't think his managing has caused this collection of talent to lose more games than its talent level suggests it should. But, I also don't think he's caused it to win any more games than it should either. To me that sounds like the description of, average, mediocre, replacement level, whatever term you want to use for it. Is that really what we should be striving for? Just as we would with any position player, or pitcher, shouldn't our goal be to have the best manager we can find, not just one who is "good enough"? If he still had a year(s) left under contract, I would say you don't fire him necessarily, because it's not his fault he has no talent. But since his contract is up after this year anyway, I don't see him as being good enough to justify giving him an extension. Is being just as good as they should be a good reason to do so?
  7. Mr. Brooks
    I disagree. Would Span have netted us Meyer if he was just a deadline rental? The team friendly contract was part of what made Willingham, and Span, an attractive target. 2012 was by far a career year for Willingham. I don't doubt that he can come back healthy and have a productive season next year. But, A) He's battled health problems on and off throughout his career. It's no guarantee he stays healthy next year. It's unlikely he puts up 2012 numbers ever again. I just didn't see a reason for risking him getting hurt and/or falling back to earth statistically. Perhaps there was not nearly the interest in him last year that the national and local media claimed there was (and even Terry Ryan said there was a lot of interest), but everything I have read and heard suggests we could have gotten a pretty good return for him. As it stands now, there is the CHANCE that next year doesn't go well either, and we end up getting nothing for him. For an older player that won't be around next time we are competitive, I don't see the payoff in taking that risk.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Regardless of how much value Willingham did or did not have, he had plenty of interest last season, both at the deadline and in the offseason. HIS value was as high as it was ever going to be, I said nothing of his value relative to Span or Revere or anyone else, I'm saying that HIS value was at its peak, whatever that was. They could have gotten something for him, he is not going to be a part of this team the next time it competes for anything. As it stands now, there is a chance he will play out his 3 year contract, on 3 90 loss teams, then leave for nothing. Sure, he could have a bounce back season next year, but it will not be on par with his 2012 season. Not trading him last year just proves, to me, that Terry Ryan did actually believe the stuff he was saying about how he thought he was putting a competitive team on the field this year. In my mind there is no other reason why you would pass on trading a player who won't be around past 2014 (when we'll still be terrible), for one or two who would have a chance to be part of the rebuild.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I agree with diehard, as much as I would love to get a look at Sano in Sept., that is just my own selfishness for wanting a reason to turn the Twins games on these days. Sept. callups are usually reserved for guys ALREADY on the 40 man. It's pretty rare to see a team add a prospect to the 40 man roster, for the SOLE purpose of giving him a Sept. call up, in fact I'm not sure I can recall the Twins ever doing so. Really, there is no logical reason to bring him up in September. Any "look" you get at him is not going to give you any kind of accurate depiction of his future. (See Parmelee, Chris) Playing in Sept. on an awful team is a bit like spring training. It doesn't tell you a whole lot. You are playing a bunch of meaningless games, against many other Sept. call ups, and rookies (some prospects, some AAAA scrubs) who are filling in for vets who've been traded.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    I think you are missing my point, entirely. My point is that good ballplayers can be found outside of top 100 prospect lists. My point is that the mindset that you have to get an A or B prospect or none at all is garbage to me.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    For one season. Glen Perkins in 2011 (his first year as a reliever) would be a much more applicable comparison then Glen Perkins today. Perkins was also a 2 time top 100 prospect. Nathan was never much of a prospect, which is my entire point. Good players can be found outside of the top 100 prospect lists. My entire point is how much garbage this attitude of, "well if you can't get an A or B prospect then you are just giving him away!!" No, not necessarily. C level prospects (such as Nathan once was) can one day become very good players.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Nathan in SF had a career ERA over 4, and was never a top 100 prospect. Maybe you don't want to call him a "lottery ticket", that is fine. But he is certainly the type of player you could easily get in return for Morneau, even now as a shell of his former self.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    That's kind of my point about relief pitchers. You are talking about a sample size of 5 innings pitched. I don't know much about Kevin Towers, but I would hope, as an MLB GM, he is smart enough to not put much, if any, stock into a 5 IP sample size. That is not even 1 entire start (unless you are a Twins pitcher) for a starting pitcher.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    IMO, thinking a relief pitcher (any relief pitcher) should get you a top 50 prospect is way too high of expectations. I don't get the reluctance of wanting to trade Perkins, at all. He is a relief pitcher. Even the very best have a tiny impact on the season as a whole. The Twins probably have at least a half dozen pitchers in their system who could be converted into a good enough closer by the time we are going to actually need one. I wouldn't even need a top 100 prospect to move Perkins. Get back a couple of prospects who have a chance to someday be in the starting 9 (or starting 5 of a rotation), and it would be a great trade to me. Hope one of them hits, if not, you haven't lost much, you plug in the next guy who comes out from nowhere to be a good closer (like Guardado, and Nathan, and Perkins, etc.) and you are no worse for the wear. Tell me what good an "elite" closer does to a 90 loss team? To me, stubbornly demanding that you have to get "fair market return" for him, or nothing at all is akin to a man losing his job and his home, finding himself on the street with no money, but refusing to sell his luxury car for 80% of it's "market value". This team has MUCH, MUCH bigger needs than a relief pitcher, regardless of how good he is.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    My opinion is of course not, but take a lottery ticket and hope one of them hits. Lottery tickets sometimes do hit. Nathan and Liriano were both lottery tickets. Anyone who thinks this team is close to competing is wearing blinders. This team is almost completely void of legit talent, and even if Buxton, Sano, Rosario, Stewart and Meyer all hit, that still is only 20% of a complete team. My point being, that its going to be several more years before we are competing for anything, and neither Morneau or Duensing is going to be a part of those teams. If Terry Ryan is a good GM, let's see him prove it by digging deep and finding a diamond buried in the rough of someone's farm system. I don't understand this notion that if you can't get a top 50 prospect you aren't getting anything. Sometimes good ballplayers can be found outside of the top prospect lists.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    I've frequently heard that you cannot offer Morneau the qualifying offer. That you have to either decide to part ways, or try to sign him in FA. IMO, if you are open to bringing him back, and you think there is even a 0.1% chance that he declines the qualifying offer, then you offer it to him. Yes, in a vacuum that offer would make him vastly overpaid, but really does that impact the team whatsoever next year? It's only a 1 year deal, and this team is not spending anywhere close to the amount of money that they have available to spend, so how does overpaying him (or anyone) for 1 year affect anything, other than Pohlad's bank account? I would rather risk overpaying him by $10 million (money that would presumably have no impact on roster assembly anyway) on a ONE YEAR deal, with the possible reward that he declines it and it nets you a comp pick, rather than being committed to him for 2 or 3 years.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    I'd chalk most of that up to small sample size (the life of a relief pitcher), and some bad luck on Duensing's part. Duensing has given up a babip of .378 this year (60 pts higher than his career norm), which includes an absurdly fluke .415 babip to left handed hitters (which further inflates his numbers because he faces more lefties than righties), while Thatcher has given up a babip of .298 (11 pts lower than his career norm). They have FIP's that are pretty close (thatcher's is about 0.40 better), and IMO are pretty similar pitchers. Of course the only thing that matters is what Kevin Towers thinks, and neither of us know how he views them.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    I think what he means is that we have to pay that money if we don't trade him. So, if we are going to have to pay that money either way, (by keeping him, or eating all of it in a trade), then why not at least get something in return for that money? So while technically the money we would be eating could be classified as overpaying (the prospect we receive isn't worth that much, in a vacuum), it's money we still have to pay by holding onto him, and getting nothing in return.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    A middle reliever at best is only going to give you 1 to 1.5 wins over the course of a season. Even if they think Joe Thatcher is significantly better than Duensing (personally I think they are pretty even, in fact I'd argue Duensing is better), you are still talking about a difference that is statistically unlikely to even impact your W/L record by an entire win from now until the end of the season. If the D'backs would really turn down a better prospect at the possibility that Thatcher might be a fraction of a win better than Duensing, then I guess you can't do anything about that then shrug, and move on. I'd be surprised if that is the case though.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    We are already leaving $30 million on the table this year, and will likely do so again next year (if not more). Why should anyone care (aside from the Pohlad's) if that money saved or not? It's not like it is going to be earmarked for future use, the Pohlad's have NEVER operated that way. If the money is not spent, it goes into the Pohlad's pockets and next year starts with a clean slate, there is no carry over.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Didn't you guarantee me going into the season that Morneau would OPS north of .900 this season? That doesn't sound like a guy who as easily replaceable as you infer above, at least not by anyone in our system.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    Perhaps we didnt have a superior LH bullpen option than Thatcher, but one would think the small difference in value between Duensing and Thatcher could have been more than made up for by offering a better prospect.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    Willingham was the obvious asset to move last year. His value was never going to be higher. Perkins is the obvious asset this year. On Morneau, I've heard that the O's offered a couple of C level lottery tickets if we ate his entire salary, but Ryan declined to do so. This just proves how unbelievably cheap Terry Ryan is. The team is already $30 million under the supposed approved payroll, I don't understand what difference it makes to us if we eat the salary or not?
  24. Mr. Brooks
    There are still 90 minutes left before the deadline, but it doesn't look like the Twins will move anyone. IMO, it is unacceptable to have 3 consecutive 90+ loss seasons, without selling a single asset at the trade deadline. Historically that is supposed to be a no brainer decision on 7/31 of lost seasons.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Chocolate chip. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...