Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mr. Brooks

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,256

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Tutorials & Help

Videos

2023 Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Free Agent & Trade Rumors

Guides & Resources

Minnesota Twins Players Project

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    It's not just potential. Even in limited time, with some offensive struggles Buxton has been more valuable than Rosario. Since the start of 2016: Buxton 9.7 bWAR Rosario 7.9 bWAR Being the best defensive player in baseball has a lot of value. When you combine that with the additional upside, which Rosario doesn't have much of, Buxton has multiple times more trade value right now.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    $3M is guaranteed no matter what, but it's not worst case. He has very easy to hit escalators, that don't require him to be good (just healthy enough to pitch a few games), and add up quickly. I'd say worst case is he's terrible and we're out $12M before the sample size is large enough to move on.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    That's fair, but everyone is different. For me, the 2000's are barely a footnote in Twins history. 1991 is what I'll remember (I was a tad young for '87).
  4. Mr. Brooks
    I'm fine with aggresive. To me, Larnach for Archer goes beyond aggressive into reckless territory. Look at his numbers last year, he's a total reclamation project. Without vast improvement, he's no better than the Thorpe/ Smeltzer/ Dobnak crowd. Larnach is a borderline elite prospect. Fangraphs update has him above Kirilloff. I'd want something closer to a sure thing if I'm trading Larnach.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Fair, but a couple of points. 1) We're fans of the Twins, not those teams. 2) How many of the other playoff teams were swept 3-0 in the first rounds? It's not unfair if some have the opinion that we were starting from a place of needing more reinforcements than those teams were. At this point it looks like we're going to have to hope that the reinforcement comes from within. It's possible, but not guaranteed, so we'll see. I'm disappointed, but at the same time still willing to give this FO the benefit of the doubt, for now. Another sweep in the first round will start to chip away at that.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    32 walks in 53 postseason innings tells me that any October success he had was mostly luck, and isn't necessarily likely to repeat itself.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    But Sano has never played even close to a full season. Nobody is going to pay for a 162 game/ 50 HR Miguel Sano just because that "could" happen. They are going to pay for his most likely outcome, which historically is 95 games, 25 HR, and below average defense that adds up to 1.5 or so bWAR.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    If Archer is the best you can get for Larnach then you just keep Larnach, IMO. I'm not saying you have to "win" every trade, but you don't want to be in a situation where you're taking almost all the risk in the deal. You're essentially eliminating any upside that Archer has if you trade Larnach for him. At that price he HAS to be pretty close to Archer at his absolute best. No thanks. He's a reclamation project, the cost should reflect that.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    5.19 ERA/ 5.02 FIP is #3 at worst? Because that's factually Chris Archer at his worst.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Because he's already being paid at least what he's worth, and likely more, on the open market. If you trade for Sale, you still have to pay that contract. Think for a moment what gives a player "trade value". It's not just their ability in a vacuum. It's how their projected ability compares to the contract cost relative to years of team control. The more "underpaid" a player is, the more trade value they have. It's not controversial, it's common sense. Would you say Sale is vastly underpaid going forward? Perhaps you think he is, the vast majority would disagree.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    I was responding to a poster who suggested he was a significant downgrade from Kyle Gibson. Gibson posted a 95 ERA+ last year. 100 is league average. League average for 1 year $7M is a bargain. I'm not sure what people are demanding from a 1 year $7M signing?
  12. Mr. Brooks
    That depends on if those 73 good innings with Oakland were fueled by a sustainable change, or if they were just random variation. Whether you approve or disapprove of this FO, I think it's fair to assume they've done some homework regarding what fueled those improved results.
  13. Mr. Brooks
    He may or may not have gotten that much on the open market, but the signing team wouldn't also have to give up prospects in addition to all that cash. Nobody is giving up legit prospects AND full market salary, hence the negative, or at best neutral trade value.
  14. Mr. Brooks
    Sale has negative trade value if we're eating all of his contract, IMO.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    Kepler isn't getting us Devers even if we take on ALL of Price's salary.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    Not sure where you got "greedy pig" from anything I said. I simply asked for clarification on whether he was speculating, or posting something factual that he read somewhere. That's it.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    So, speculation. That's fine, I was just checking because your post was stated as if it were factual knowledge.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    That's quite a leap from bought mom a car (like every pro athlete) to doesn't care about money.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Do you have a link for that? Or is this speculation?
  20. Mr. Brooks
    It's not that black and white. There is a range of possibilities, each with its own probability of happening. Not to mention several variables that are constantly fluid which change those probabilities in real time. There is some probability that he becomes a guy that can help in the playoffs, some probability that he doesn't. So the price very much does matter.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    I'd say Graterol and Jeffers would be a good starting point for Gray. For Alcantara, depending on if they want quality or quantity, you could offer Graterol straight up, or something like Rooker plus Gordon plus Javier plus Rortvedt.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    If we're taking on all of Sale's contract, we better be getting prospects back, not sending them.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    No way. Larnach is way too much to give up for Archer, IMO.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    If Archer can really be had for Rooker and Gordon, it should have been done yesterday.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    Great win. Happy for the players and coaching staff. Everytime I doubt PJ, he proves me wrong. Hopefully he's here for the long haul. Row the boat.
×
×
  • Create New...