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
    Seems sustainable.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    If he's good enough to stick all year on a playoff contender, I'm not sure why they'd put him in AAA next year, as a 28 year old. 28 year olds in AAA are career minor leaguers, they don't have a future in mlb.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Of course. But I'm referencing posts that are making judgements based on ST stats, not those other things. And to me, ST stats have no meaning whatsoever. Not even as a tie breaker, or for the 24th or 25th guy. To be clear, if it's me, I'm using everything except ST stats to make the decision. All the things I listed, and all the things you listed. I honestly would make sure I didn't even know what the ST stats were, just to make sure I wasn't subconsciously influenced by them. I wish they wouldn't even keep track of them.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    Well, I disagree. Mainly because in baseball, even the greatest players to ever play the game go through extended slumps, relatively often. I'd make my roster decisions based on talent, tools, and track record in actual games. Spring Training would have almost no input in my roster decisions. That's how I'd do it, that may not be how it's actually done.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    That's not, or at least shouldn't be, the purpose of ST. It's practice to get warmed up for the season. It shouldn't be an audition.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    Sure, but 30- some innings are nowhere near that point. That babip and strand rate are simply not sustainable.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    He'd have to clear waivers.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    I don't agree that Busenitz was great at mlb in 2017. Lucky, yes. 4.20 FIP, unimpressive k rate, extremely lucky babip and strand rate.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    Well I'm definitely in the minority, but I'm assuming they see/saw something correctable with Kinley when they selected him. And, I'm pretty excited to see what they can do with his electric stuff.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    According to Vice Sports, it goes back into the owners pockets. "As currently constructed, MLB's drug policy—whether for performance-enhancers like steroids or recreational drugs like cocaine or marijuana—places the salaries of suspended players right back in the pocketbooks of their employers." https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/ez33km/how-mlb-profits-from-players-with-addictions
  11. Mr. Brooks
    But that's not what he said. He said they were "likely" to win the division, which they are. Of course there are no locks in sports, and the Twins have a shot at the division. But, Cleveland is, and should be the heavy favorite.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    I don't think we could move Hughes even if we ate his entire contract. He still requires a 25 man roster spot, and I can't imagine anyone thinks he's worth that.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    Busenitz had a 4.20 FIP last season. He wasn't very good at all, IMO, just incredibly lucky. He had babip and strand rates that are nowhere near repeatable.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    Well those lower levels are much more about tools than stats. But, if he can't play the outfield, he's definitely much less of a prospect. He likely doesn't have Sano offensive tools that will play anywhere.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    Well if Bill Gates loses a million dollars, and gains none, he'll still have more money than me, so I'm not sure why you are disputing what was written.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    The testing is random. It has no bearing on how the team is performing or performed the year before.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    It also prevents some players benefiting from the timing of their failed test. A player who fails in March would be back in time for postseason, while a player who fails in July would miss the postseason.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    Nobody has a starting caliber backup at every position. Not even the big spenders. It's just not realistic. Good, smart teams try to have the most talented, reliable backups they can. Because injuries do happen. But it's just not practical to have backups at every position that won't make you miss your starter over the long haul. If you did, they wouldn't be backups, they'd be starters somewhere, and market forces would ensure that. The only way your idea would work, IMO, would be to contract to about 18 teams. There just isn't a large enough talent pool to consistently allow teams to have 25 everyday caliber players.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Agents earn like 3-4%. That's 50k max he's paid to agents. Probably another 50k max to the rest of those things. Also, I don't believe anyone said he's set for life. But he's also nowhere near poverty. In fact it's insulting to the billion+ people in the world who do face poverty on an everyday basis to suggest that he is.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    My point is, how much money does one have to have, before it's no longer understandable? Are you saying it's understandable for anyone? If so, why even bring the poverty aspect into the comment? Are you saying that if you were once poor, then it's continuously understandable, regardless of how much money they've already earned? I'd be more understanding if it's a fringe milb guy who didn't have a large bonus, and hadn't already earned mlb paychecks. But Polanco is no longer poor. And he's relatively established as a major leaguer. Barring catastrophic injury, his floor at this point is probably an Eduardo Escobar type career, which is going to be fairly lucrative. Long story short, I'm just trying to discern how much security a guy can have, before poverty no longer makes what he did understandable?
  21. Mr. Brooks
    None of those guys are likely to be ready by June. In fact, only Gordon has a chance. I don't agree that there is a high likelihood that this causes any missed time beyond the suspension. The only scenario I can see that would, is if both Escobar and Adrianza start out terribly, and the Twins trade for a SS better than Polanco. But, with them likely being close to maxed out payroll right now, I don't find that too likely either.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    I think have read previously that most players are tested randomly twice per year. I think players with previous failed tests are subject to unlimited random tests.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    You're probably right. But, I think it's more of a toss up than you think. Escobar is a very poor defensive SS. At least by the metrics. And I think, with much of the Twins improvement last year coming from defense, that Molitor might be inclined to take a hard look at the better defender in this case.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Well, even though there is no salary cap in baseball, we know Falvine have a budget. So, every dollar spent on backups is one less dollar spent on starters. I'd rather have the money spent on players likely to play every day, rather than a bench player who MIGHT have to play a lot, IF the player ahead of him gets hurt or suspended. Sure, if Falvine could predict the future, they might have been able to pay $5 million for a backup SS, without hurting the budget too much. That basically removes Morrison from the team, assuming they are at budget. But since they can't predict which player will get hurt or suspended for a long period of time, they'd have to spend that much at every backup spot, which would severely cut into the budget for the players they expect to play everyday. Then, there's also the obstacle of convincing players to take equal money to be an insurance policy, when they are good enough to start somewhere else. So, you'd likely have to pay a premium to acquire many of those players. Are you willing to eliminate the signings of Morrison, Lynn, Reed, and Rodney, so they can instead sign starting caliber backups at every position? I'm not. I'd assume most GM's with a budget also would not.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    99.9% of people in the world will never make generations of money. So that is a pretty low standard of when it's understandable to cheat to get ahead.
×
×
  • Create New...