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
    Love her or hate her (I'm not a fan) Ann Coulter can throw haymakers with the best of them. Ouch.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    Yep,I have to eat some crow regarding Pelosi. I thought it was time for the Democrats to move on to younger leadership, and that may or may not still be the case. But Pelosi played Trump like a fiddle through this whole process. To use Trump's terms: Very impressed!
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Thanks. I didn't even think of their Supreme Court hijacking in my examples. That was unforgivable, IMO.
  4. Mr. Brooks
    Paragraph 1: It sounds like we agree there is a line, but disagree on whether it's been crossed yet. Which is totally cool with me. Paragraph 2: I understand that actions have unforeseeable and unintended consequences. And as I said to Levi, this wall nonsense might have me overreacting. Perhaps things will level back out once we no longer have a polarizing bully in the White House. At the moment though, it feels like we've reached a tipping point. I hope I'm wrong.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    I don't agree that the majority already get what they want. I think in some form or another, the majority of people want some form of the following: Healthcare for all. Prison reform. Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (federal). Affordable college. Common sense gun control. I'm sure there are more. Maybe you're more optimistic than I am, but I don't feel any of these are close to being addressed. As I stated in a response to La Bombo, I don't necessarily know how to fix it. Perhaps larger states remain at 2 Senators, while some of the really small ones only get 1. Then you'd still give smaller states more than their fair share of representation, but not necessarily equal representation. Maybe I'm overreacting to this wall nonsense, but it's really my tipping point on this issue. For something most people don't want, NO border representative (including R's) thinks will help, was promised to be paid for by Mexico, and didn't seem to be a priority when Republicans had all three houses (because they don't actually want it, they just want to use it as a wedge to fear monger against Democrats), to be able to shut down the government for 35 days is where the shark has gotten jumped, IMO.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    That's fair. But those are still fairly strong numbers for something that has 0% chance of happening, IMO, under our current system.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    I was going to mention that, but I don't think the OP stated if it was live pitching. Batting practice is useful, of course, but not really for identifying breaking balls.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    But this is another argument that frames it as agenda based. I'll say it again, even if I won't be believed, for me it's the principle, not because Dems aren't getting what they want. To me, it's not fair for so few people to wield so much power.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    When the government shuts down for 35 days for something the people don't want, something Trump said Mexico would pay for when he was campaigning, then to me no, it's not working.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    I don't know. But Hunter and Cuddyer both had this problem and managed to overcome it and become serviceable to very good hitters, so I wouldn't cast that die for Buxton yet.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    Yeah, what does Forbes know about accounting. I guess they just made it up. But why?
  12. Mr. Brooks
    I'm aware there is a reason this was done. With all due respect to the founding fathers, we owe them a lot, they couldn't have foreseen some things (population shifts, assault weapons, etc), and some things they were flat out wrong on (slavery, women's rights, etc). I would respectfully submit that the issue is both things (skewed power representation AND the way those in power choose to govern), as well as a slough of others. If 350 million people lived in one state, and 2 people each in the other 49 states, would you still think Senate allocation wasn't an issue? Yes, I know it's an unrealistically extreme example. But, again, we may agree a line exists, while simply disagreeing on whether we've already crossed that line or not.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    Conclusive, non partisan proof? No. But, this is an opinion forum here. Some of us share the opinion that the pendulum has begun to swing too far in this direction. Would you agree that it's at least possible for that to happen, at some point? I'd argue that standing in the way of issues that upwards of 70 % of the population agrees on is bordering on an impediment to democracy. Again, this could be a disagreement in where the line is. Do you agree that at some point that could be the case? What if the number on an issue was 90%? What if it was 99%? I can't speak for everyone, I'm sure for some, maybe even many, it's agenda based. For me it's not. It's principled. I think the wall is stupid and does nothing to solve any problems. But, if 70% of the population wanted the wall, I'd be arguing that the government should fund the stupid wall. I also think there is plenty of room between making common sense adjustments, and rendering smaller states irrelevant. I don't know where that balance is, or how to find it, I'll admit. But, I do think that we are currently past that point.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    I don't know. Ask the FO, as they are the ones who floated the idea that guys being disappointed with 1 year deals caused their subpar performance. Them saying that, and then continuing to sign 1 year deals, makes it a very legitimate question, which Falvey addresses in the interview.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    The Dakotas having twice as much power as California is complete nonsense to me. It's an outdated allocation of power. This laughable border wall nonsense wouldn't even be a thing without it, the overwhelming majority of people don't want the wall. 71% of people are now for Medicare for all, yet that has no chance anytime soon. A strong majority are also for federal legalization, or at least decriminalization of marijuana, which also likely has no chance anytime soon. I understand the original desired balance of checking the majority. But, i don't think anyone could have predicted the population shifts we've undergone. It's now swung too far in the desired direction, IMO. Tyranny is a very strong word. But, considering the effects that the above mentioned issues are having on people, it might be appropriate.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    1) I'm not sure I agree that they obviously view 2019 as a contending year. In fact, 1 year, bounce back type contracts are exactly the type of deals I'd look for were I rebuilding. They can be turned into long term assets if they bounce back, but don't block internal options with long term commitments if they don't. 2) He's worried about them flopping BECAUSE they are on 1 year deals, as the FO hypothesized as much regarding Morrison and Lynn. So I don't see any contradiction there. 3) Mostly fair, though different people vary on their definition of meaningful games. It's not impossible to make up 5-7 games in September, but I'd venture to guess it's quite a long shot. If they are 7 games back, with say 20 to go, I won't consider those last 20 games meaningful. Others may fairly disagree.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    It's not crediting James Pohlad as having 3 championships (I assume the 3rd is from Senators days), it's separate informational bylines about the franchise. One byline notes who currently owns the franchise. The next, separate byline, happens to note the number of championships.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    I was actually thinking of someone that's no longer present (can't recall his username), though I'm sure there were others.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    An interesting letter to the editor from this morning's online STrib, that is a topic that has been discussed in this forum often: Even though the majority of Americans want to end the shutdown, in Thursday’s votes in the U.S. Senate, Republican senators from red states with relatively small populations in which President Donald Trump still polls positively voted against ending the shutdown. This reflects the problem that, given the ratio of senators representing states with small populations relative to the larger U.S. population, on this and other issues, the Senate does not represent the opinions of the American public. While many Democrats representing states with large populations such as California, New York or Illinois support ending the shutdown, they are outvoted by senators representing states with smaller populations. As noted in a Washington Post column by Philip Bump (https://goo.gl/ziGm1c), since 1790, “the most-populous states making up half of the country’s population have always been represented by only about a fifth of the available Senate seats.” Bump also notes that the problem will only worsen in the future, citing a report by the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib “that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. … They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.” RICHARD BEACH, MINNEAPOLIS
  20. Mr. Brooks
    Failing to perform in sports, especially over small sample sizes, doesn't mean the player wasn't trying to perform. I mean, with all due respect, it's preposterous to me to suggest that a pending FA, in the World Series, wasn't trying.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Hence the words "just about".
  22. Mr. Brooks
    Well the goal in acquiring players is to win on the field, not to acquire praise. So the words "done well" mean something completely different to me. I apologize if I misread your post.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    I agree. After all, Dave St. Peter just told Judd Zulgad that ownership has no limit on available payroll. Not flexibility, not increased payroll availability, but no limit whatsoever! Based on this new information, it's downright incompetent to not sign both of them.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Without digging into a stat that I don't know much about, I'm assuming they are banking on Kepler's low babip's being a product of bad luck. In other words, with neutral luck, Kepler "should" put up better offensive numbers than he has in the past. I'm not necessarily agreeing with that. There are more variables that go into babip than just luck. But, theoretically, Kepler's numbers could be the victim of poor luck on balls in play, in which case those numbers should be expected to improve, even without any actual improvement from Kepler.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    "For the 16th consecutive year, MLB saw record gross revenues. For 2018, baseball-related revenues were $10.3 billion, according to industry sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The revenues do not include the $2.58 billion sale of BAMTech to Disney that is reported as capital." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/07/mlb-sees-record-revenues-of-10-3-billion-for-2018/amp/
×
×
  • Create New...