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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    Assuming the Rays tried, at least precursorly, to trade Cron before waiving him, and the Twins seemingly didn't offer up Gordon, I think it's fairly clear that the Twins FO, thankfully, didn't agree. I'm down on Gordon too, but he's a borderline top 100 prospect. Cron was released for nothing, and passed over by several teams on waivers.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    You still have 13. Your list: 1. Cruz 2. Garver 3. Castro 4. Cron 5. Schoop 6. Polanco 7. Adrianza 8. Sano 9. Moustakas 10. Rosario 11. Buxton 12. Kepler 13. Cave
  3. Mr. Brooks
    I'm not sure where you are getting #1 from. The board seems overwhelmingly in favor of this move. Like, 80% minimum.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    They should still try, buy its not gonna happen. He going to go to a market with a more significant Japanese community, like San Francisco, LA, Seattle, or New York. He's not going to Minneapolis.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Nothing wrong with optimism. But, I think it's a little unfair to suggest that people who don't share your level of optimism must not be watching the games. There has been plenty of visual evidence suggesting less optimistic results from all of those players.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    The guy who scouted Nishioka is currently suing the Twins for age discrimination.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    If the FO doesn't have short, mid, and long term financial projections, then, again, they are incompetent and we're screwed. They knew if they'd need the money or not. They could still shock the world, and sign Machado or Harper. But that's highly unlikely, and it seems like they won't come close to needing that 7.2 million dollars.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    No. What I'm saying is the owner could have said, "I understand that you can't play Hughes any longer, he's hurting the team. But, I'll ask that you try to find a team that will give salary relief before you cut him outright." Purely blows my mind that people think that isn't plausible, based on what we know of this ownership. The salary relief that SD is paying is for the 2019 salary, not last year's. We paid his full salary last year. So it had nothing to do with flexibility for a trade, should they have gotten into contention. The savings was for this season, a season they, at this time (could change), don't appear set to spend anywhere close to the top of their budget. There is only one logical reason they would do that, and it's not to benefit them.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    This ownership demanded that the FO keep the manager. Yet people insist it's not plausible that they demand the FO get money back instead of outright releasing Hughes. Those two ideas aren't compatible. And once again, you didn't directly answer my question. You laid out how it could have went down, but you still don't tell me what benefit the FO gets by saving that money.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    I said a quarter of a million.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    Thanks for the responses bird and Brian, but neither one of you answered my question, at least not directly. Why would it benefit the FO to send good assets away to save money THEY AREN'T GOING TO SPEND, when they could have simply cut him? Either they had to, to satisfy ownership, or they are just incompetent, in which case we're in big trouble.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Would I need my employer's permission to push a quarter million dollar dump truck off a cliff? I mean the money is already spent, whether I destroy the dump truck or not.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    As it could have by simply cutting him. Again, what benefit does the FO get by sending SD very good assets to take on some of his contract? Neither one of us have evidence, nor will we ever, but it simply defies logic that the FO would give up good assets in order to save money that they don't get to use, unless they had to too appease ownership.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    He has to be added to the 40 man regardless of what month it is. Is there a reason why that's easier in September?
  15. Mr. Brooks
    Well they certainly don't appear to be using the salary savings. So, how does it benefit the FO to give up a pretty good asset (draft pick, PLUS draft pool money), with seemingly only any benefit to the Pohlad's pocketbook?
  16. Mr. Brooks
    Good point. That does make it more likely.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    Very unlikely, since he's not on the 40 man roster.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Who is ignoring that? I already said I rarely criticize a specific pick. Misses happen all the time, I understand. You'll never find me questioning the Stewart pick, for example, even though I think he's likely a bust. A reliever at 6 has no defense, to me, none. And it never will. Thinking he could be converted to a starter was a desperation, hail mary, imo, and a fireable offense. Has that ever happened that high in the draft?
  19. Mr. Brooks
    It's not hindsight when many people wanted Benintendi over Jay on draft day. I recall most people were happy with the Gibson pick. I rarely criticize specific draft picks, but a college reliever at 6 overall was a head scratcher from the start.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    Me as well.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    All of those teams except Boston rest their luxury tax penalty last year, specifically so they could sign Machado or Harper without significantly penalty.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    I'm sure SD would take him off our hands, if we ship them a 2nd round pick.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    Minnesota is a great place to live. But most people can't comprehend that until they live here. Plus, these two are young guys. Minnesota can't compete with the lifestyle that they can find in an LA or NY or Chicago, etc. Any contract that we can offer them, one of those markets can easily match. And, other teams have good young players and prospects too. "We might be good someday" can't hold a candle to, "we won 90 games last year." I'll believe that interest is tepid when April comes and they're begging for a one year deal.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Why are Machado and Harper taking the Twins phone call? Those two guys, uniquely to almost every other free agent, are getting paid no matter what. They are going to a big market, proven contender, or both.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Non-tendering by itself doesn't affect free agency. Clearing waivers afterwards does. The Twins claimed Cron off waivers, so we control him just the same as TB would have had they tendered him. Had Cron cleared waivers, as Schoop did, then he would have become a free agent.
×
×
  • Create New...