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
    Don't they have a day off tomorrow?
  2. Mr. Brooks
    Don't let facts get in the way of a good "Falvey is incompetent" narrative.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    IMO, I think it's time to put the pedal down. Cycling rest was a good luxury when we had a big lead. That's not the case now. Playing baseball isn't exactly coal mining. I'm not saying it's not a taxing grind, but it shouldn't be too much for a young athlete to handle. I'd be curious to know if Cleveland has been running out their best 9 every day during this impressive run? And two, if a scheduled day off is a must, why not do it against a lefty?
  4. Mr. Brooks
    Fair, if that's where you stand. Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to expect multiple arms as good as or better than Rogers. I think one guy on par with Rogers (hopefully pending), and another two a tier below (Romo + pending, or Romo + a current starter if we improve the rotation) is more realistic, and a pretty good upgrade to the staff.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Some guys aren't open to extensions. And even if they are, that is completely separate from the timing of the trade. Why not trade for a player in the offseason, rather than at the deadline, and then extend him? You still get the same end result, but without paying the prospect premium for the 1/3rd of season that you aren't contending.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Can any of the excellent draft day writers here tell us if there were any mid round picks that the Twins had on their radar that were sniped by Miami?
  7. Mr. Brooks
    Because as Brock said, you're paying a premium for the 1/3 season control that remains this year. There are also controllable assets available in the offseason, and you don't have to pay for extra team control that is wasted on a non competitive 1/3 of a season.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    Something wrong with Rosario?
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I loved the improvement Diaz made this year. But it's pretty unlikely he'd have even gotten a shot here until 2021 at the earliest. By which point he'd have burned 2 options. We have Cron and Cruz next year, and Rooker at least, if not Kirilloff and Larnach are above him in the pecking order. A lot would have had to go right (or wrong) for him to get a realistic shot here before his final option season.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Given that they weren't up against an 11th hour deadline, isn't the most likely explanation is that it's a 2019 draft pick that can't technically be named yet?
  11. Mr. Brooks
    So no move will be acceptable to you if the player isn't better than Taylor Rogers? I hope they get 1 arm that is as good as, or better than Rogers, but IMO, expecting 3 guys better than Rogers isn't reasonable.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I'd like to have him too. He's been a bit unlucky, in addition to some regression. But it still has a long way to go to get into "fleecing" territory. Johan Santana for Jered Camp, now that's a fleecing.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    I could get behind that as an opportunistic strategy if you find yourself 7 games under in a year that happens to be a buyer's market. This year looks like it has the makings of a seller's market, so that would be a bizarre strategy, IMO.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    Nick Anderson has 0.2 career bWAR. We're calling that a "fleecing"?
  15. Mr. Brooks
    Even if they're wrong, I think the Sox consider themselves contenders next year. I'd be shocked if they move anyone significant.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    Yep. I get that Baldelli's "thing" is to rotate everyone and give plenty of days off. And I respect that. But, our lead is all but gone. It's time to start running the best guys out there every night.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Well of course. Everyone would (and should) be underwhelmed if this is the only deal. I don't understand why, with more than 100 hours left until the deadline, people are already judging this as if it will be the only move.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    "Great" prospect is your subjective opinion. Certainly no respected national publication feels that way about him. Romo is also among the league leaders in least hard contact allowed, and lowest exit velocity. K/9 is important for some pitchers. Romo has always done well by inducing soft contact.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Teams are allowed to make more than one trade.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    IMO, yes it does.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Not for 3 more years.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    We got back a pitching prospect that's arguably a wash with Diaz.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    What history? This is the first deadline that the FO has had a clear contender.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    I mean, my mind is always open to be swayed, with some examples. But, I'm not sure that's true. How many sub .500 OPS bats have been allowed to hang around an MLB team, no matter how good their defense is?
  25. Mr. Brooks
    That is their batting line for the entire game.
×
×
  • Create New...