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
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    I personally think Astudillo at 3B and Austin at 1B provides more value than Gonzalez at 3B and Astudillo at 1B.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    I think they'll probably be able to get someone's 18th-30th ranked prospect for him, which is better than nothing. But I think they could have gotten more if they had given him a chance to reveal some more of his potential this year.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Of course there is only so much the market will bear. But, nobody has shown me any evidence that we are headed towards that point. Only theories and guesses and hypotheses, no evidence. Anyone who reads all of my posts will see that I'm not on the players or owners side. I'm only on the side of facts. I've simultaneously argued against pro labor and pro ownership whenever I think an argument goes against the facts.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I'd be comfortable calling up Kiriloff next week if Cron or Cruz gets injured, but would the team be? I doubt it. Time for some reverse voodoo, because I'm not looking forward to Gonzalez as the everyday first baseman if one of those guys gets hurt.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    That is the hallmark of a great show. Walter White, Tony Soprano, Dexter, all very flawed, often downright terrible characters that you can't help but find yourself empathizing with at times.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Still very early, so I won't close the book on him yet, but this ranks 0.0 on the surprise scale to me. He looked absolutely cooked last year. I know he later suggested he was hurt, but he was healthy enough to stay in the lineup, which means the numbers count.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Too bad we don't get to play awful KC and the Cleveland MASH unit every day. Was excited to see how we matched up against a good team. Not so good, I guess.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    At some point they don't want to put their milb staffs in a judgement call situation. Everywhere in life has these arbitrary lines, everywhere. Is someone who is 17 years and 364 days old less competent to vote than someone a day older? Of course not. But what is the alternative? Every polling station makes their best judgment call on who looks mature enough to vote? Is 55 mph safe, while 56 is reckless? Are 10 items few enough to breeze through the express checkout, but 11 would grind it to a halt? Obviously not, but it's more efficient than telling every cashier to just pick and choose who can use that checkout. The FO can't be in constant contact with every milb staff during every inning of every game. In general, they don't want pitchers throwing too many pitches in one stressful inning. Of course 35 pitches has little significant difference from 34 or 36, but the alternative, trying to be involved in a judgment call every time across multiple levels all playing games every day would be just as silly. I guess I don't understand what the controversy is. What would your policy be if you were in charge of the organization?
×
×
  • Create New...