Danny Santana: Outfielder?

[stringer bell]

Santana has plus tools. He had been disappointing in his MiLB career, but always young for his age. He came up to the majors in 2014 and played well over his head, but I think there was reason to believe that while the BABIP was out of line and would regress, he would still be a pretty solid offensive player. I think Santana has to get his head together as it was in 2014 and he will be a better performer. I also believe there is a better chance for him to be a good defender in the outfield than in the infield. I don't see him as having good hands or instincts, but the speed and arm can make up for his deficiencies in the wide open spaces of the outfield.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ryan needs to start dealing some of these young guys at their peak (true, easier said than done). Or at least deal them for something of value, while they still have value.

 

The Twins outfield for the next couple years looks to be: Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Sano. All have the possibility of contributing this year and having good MLB careers, but 4 outfielders is 1 too many. To say nothing of the other OF's in the system, free agency, or the log jam at corner infield and DH.

 

A fun exercise would be to go back and look at the reactions when the Royals traded away top prospect Wil Myers for James Shields.

 

The Royals must have had a feeling, or knew something before any other of the teams caught on, and they made a pretty bold move to trade him.

1. If you have four outfield prospects and three of them turn into reliable starters, that's a huge win. Don't assume all four players will become viable MLB starters.

 

2. The Royals look good after the Myers trade but some of that is due to dumb luck. Myers was never injured in the minors and has been nothing but injured since coming to MLB. That's not the sort of thing a team can predict with any kind of accuracy.

[Buford_T_Justice]

Seems like we have the most talented Twins team in years, but we're not sure how or even if the pieces will fit together. is our problem really at the bottom of the roster, or are some of you really concerned about the underpinnings of our starting lineup?

 

I, for one, have some confidence in the spring process. Some will force a decision one way or the other, some will get hurt, and a few guys will prompt head-scratching. Appreciate everyone's thoughts, but there will likely be something that none of us expects that blows up many of many of our assertions. We may as well guess at those, too. Pick one or create your own!

 

1. Dozier hurt in spring training

2. Hunter goes to spring training, misses the team too much, and unretires

3. Vargas can't get his visa in time to join the team until March

4. Nolasco gives up only 4 hits and 1 run in the exhibition games

5. Santana looks great in CF, and Buxton starts 0 for 17

6. Nick Punto...oh, never mind

[Darius]

I think its good for Santana.  He is what he is at SS at this point, and its not great.  

 

Unfortunately, I think it seals Buxton's fate to start the season in AAA, unless he goes berserk in spring training. 

[USAFChief]

The gaping hole in this train of thought is "If you see giant red flags of potential regression, so do opposing GMs."

If your complaint about Ryan is predicated on other GMs having an IQ under 70 and not understanding the game of baseball, your argument is probably flawed.

No one was going to offer value for a rookie with a MiLB OPS around .700 and a MLB BABIP over .400. No one. Not even Arizona.

Then the question is, if he had zero trade value, why would the Twins give him a starting gig (or any job) out of spring training in 2015?

 

And why is he still on the 40 man?

[stringer bell]

 

Then the question is, if he had zero trade value, why would the Twins give him a starting gig (or any job) out of spring training in 2015?

And why is he still on the 40 man?

Of course, Santana had some trade value a year ago. He performed at a near All-Star level as a 23-year-old. Even with a regression in BABIP, it would figure he would be a pretty good offensive player, especially if he improved his BB/K and K per PA ratios. I figured that instead of hitting .319, he would hit in the .270-.290 range and his OBP wouldn't suffer much because he could walk a bit more. I had grave concerns about his defense at short, mostly from watching him in Spring Training of 2014. The concerns about his defense were realized and seemed to compound his problems at the plate. As I wrote earlier, Santana has major league tools with a strong arm, great speed and a quick bat. He has selectivity issues that will probably limit his upside as a hitter and (IMHO) defensive issues included so-so instincts (as an infielder) and less-than-soft hands, both of which could be minimized in the outfield. He is still only 25 and his lifetime MLB numbers (in just about a year of full-time play) are more than satisfactory for a utility player. It makes sense to see if he can put up decent or better offensive numbers while playing several positions. If he can, he's an asset, if not DFA fodder.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Then the question is, if he had zero trade value, why would the Twins give him a starting gig (or any job) out of spring training in 2015?

And why is he still on the 40 man?

Because he has potential value to the Twins. He's a big question mark. Teams don't pay for big question marks.

 

Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Looked at Santana's 2014 numbers and said "2015 could be really ugly... I hope it's not, but it has the potential to be really ugly."

 

Yet some of the same people speak out of the other side of their mouth and say "Ryan should have traded him when his value "peaked".

 

It's nonsensical. Like I said earlier, if your argument is predicated on the opposing GM being mentally impaired, the argument sucks.

[USAFChief]

 

Because he has potential value to the Twins. He's a big question mark. Teams don't pay for big question marks.

 

Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Looked at Santana's 2014 numbers and said "2015 could be really ugly... I hope it's not, but it has the potential to be really ugly."

 

Yet some of the same people speak out of the other side of their mouth and say "Ryan should have traded him when his value "peaked".

 

It's nonsensical. Like I said earlier, if your argument is predicated on the opposing GM being mentally impaired, the argument sucks.

If he had/has potential value to the Twins, he had/has potential value to other teams as well.

 

If his potential value to other teams was so low that not. one. single. GM. would. offer. ANYthing. of value...then he had no potential value to the Twins, either.

 

Which he obviously did, so IMO you overstate your case when you say he wasn't tradeable last winter.  He wasn't going to bring back a huge haul, but that's not the same has "had no value."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If he had/has potential value to the Twins, he had/has potential value to other teams as well.

 

If his potential value to other teams was so low that not. one. single. GM. would. offer. ANYthing. of value...then he had no potential value to the Twins, either.

 

Which he obviously did, so IMO you overstate your case when you say he wasn't tradeable last winter.  He wasn't going to bring back a huge haul, but that's not the same has "had no value."

There's a big difference between having potential value on the roster and paying for potential value. It costs the Twins nothing but a roster spot to see what happens with Santana. Giving up something of value to acquire him is an entirely different argument. Hell, even Terry Ryan - Santana's own GM - went out of his way to point out that Santana was going to regress and we can't expect him to repeat his 2014 season. How often does a GM say something like that? How often does Terry Ryan say something like that? My vote goes to "I've never heard him say anything like that before".

 

Sure, maybe I overstated my case. It's entirely possible Danny Santana would have brought back a middling low-A prospect with a smidgeon of upside.

 

Yippee.

 

Any offer for Santana was going to be based on something approaching a worst-case scenario because he was such an outlier in 2014 and no GM in their right mind was going to give up anything worth mentioning. Sure, that player might technically have "value" but he probably wouldn't even slot into the top 20 Twins prospects as of a year ago (when the system was loaded) so who cares?

 

Again... My point is that if the core of an argument requires another GM to be a complete buffoon, the argument is invalid. This should be common sense yet it's anything but common around here some days.

[Platoon]

I have never understood why a team would announce a move like this in the first place. If there can be any rationale it can only be to light a fire under Buxton, or to comfort EE, neither of which I think is necessary. That said, Santana's current value seems best suited to a utility role. He is a better fielder than Nunez, and a far better OF than eithe Nunez, or Escobar. In a normal world, Nunez would be gone, but this is Twins Territory. So either they trade/release Arcia, or the bench looks set. Arcia, Murphy, Nunez, and Santana. If we enter the year with Nunez as our only spare IF, that will be too bad. Given all the scenarios, I still think Buxton is headed to Rochester to start the year. I don't think he should, but I think he will.

[HitInAPinch]

 

Santana has plus tools. He had been disappointing in his MiLB career, but always young for his age. He came up to the majors in 2014 and played well over his head, but I think there was reason to believe that while the BABIP was out of line and would regress, he would still be a pretty solid offensive player. I think Santana has to get his head together as it was in 2014 and he will be a better performer. I also believe there is a better chance for him to be a good defender in the outfield than in the infield. I don't see him as having good hands or instincts, but the speed and arm can make up for his deficiencies in the wide open spaces of the outfield.

Completely agree. 

 

My belief has always been that Santana hit better in 2014 because he was more comfortable in CF.  Watching his play with the Twins at SS was a little tough to watch.  Great arm, poor footwork.  If Buxton is deemed not ready, what's the harm in seeing Part 2, D. Santana in CF?  Worse that'll happen is Buxton get's fired up in AAA, takes over CF and Santana is a super utility player?

 

[bird]

It' not like the Twins called a press conference with great flourish to announce a concrete plan to ensconce Danny Santana in the outfield for 2016. This is a non-story. It's no more complicated than Ryan's comment, which is that the guy has some gifts and they're still giving him a shot at converting them into a contribution in some form or another on this team.

 

Funny that we're so fixated about this guy considering that, at his peak as a minor league prospect, there were at least 12-15 prospects for whom the Twins had higher expectations at the time. And a dozen additional prospects have subsequently been brought on board that have greater promise than him. Danny Santana is and has always been one of those prospects you just hope kind of emerges from the shadows. So, if he gets it figured out, kudos to him and the Twins, and if 2014 was really a fluke, so be it. That's what generally happens to prospects in his category.

 

[alarp33]

 

It' not like the Twins called a press conference with great flourish to announce a concrete plan to ensconce Danny Santana in the outfield for 2016. This is a non-story. It's no more complicated than Ryan's comment, which is that the guy has some gifts and they're still giving him a shot at converting them into a contribution in some form or another on this team.

 

Funny that we're so fixated about this guy considering that, at his peak as a minor league prospect, there were at least 12-15 prospects for whom the Twins had higher expectations at the time. And a dozen additional prospects have subsequently been brought on board that have greater promise than him. Danny Santana is and has always been one of those prospects you just hope kind of emerges from the shadows. So, if he gets it figured out, kudos to him and the Twins, and if 2014 was really a fluke, so be it. That's what generally happens to prospects in his category.

 

You are correct that he was never considered a top prospect.  The reason people are "fixated" is because the Twins trotted him out there for 277 plate appearances last year, and he was the worst hitter in baseball (and his defense wasn't any better). The difference between what they did and going to Escobar as the SS a few weeks earlier, may have been a playoff spot.  

 

My "fixation" with Santana is finding out where they are going to give away at bats this season.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Because he has potential value to the Twins. He's a big question mark. Teams don't pay for big question marks.

So you trade him for another team's question mark. While he has value. Ryan traded Hicks for Murphy, which was a trade both teams made from a position of strength.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So you trade him for another team's question mark. While he has value. Ryan traded Hicks for Murphy, which was a trade both teams made from a position of strength.

So you're advocating the Twins should have traded their question mark at shortstop when they only had other question marks available at shortstop to back him up.

 

Hey, it's great that Escobar worked out but nobody counted on him to do much of anything 12 months ago. And this is assuming anyone was willing to give up anything for Santana in the first place.

 

Let me pose you this question because I have the feeling it will end this conversation in a hurry.

 

It's January of 2015. You need a shortstop or centerfielder for your team. Danny Santana is available.

 

What do you pay to acquire him?

 

...

 

That's what I thought. Would you have paid more than pennies on the dollar for Santana based on his 2014? I sure as hell wouldn't have given up much of anything for the guy, which makes a trade rather pointless because the Twins needed a shortstop. Why take another team's flyer at another position when you have a flyer of your own already on the roster at a position of need?

[Kwak]

 

So you're advocating the Twins should have traded their question mark at shortstop when they only had other question marks available at shortstop to back him up.

 

Hey, it's great that Escobar worked out but nobody counted on him to do much of anything 12 months ago. And this is assuming anyone was willing to give up anything for Santana in the first place.

 

Let me pose you this question because I have the feeling it will end this conversation in a hurry.

 

It's January of 2015. You need a shortstop or centerfielder for your team. Danny Santana is available.

 

What do you pay to acquire him?

 

...

 

That's what I thought. Would you have paid more than pennies on the dollar for Santana based on his 2014? I sure as hell wouldn't have given up much of anything for the guy, which makes a trade rather pointless because the Twins needed a shortstop. Why take another team's flyer at another position when you have a flyer of your own already on the roster at a position of need?

Put any Twins player name (Active Roster) in January of 2015, in place of Danny Santana, and the answer really doesn't change very much.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I find this conversation odd. I feel like I'm defending Danny Santana when I've been one of his biggest detractors since day one.

 

It's weird that people can see such flaws in a player they consider taking him off the roster yet assume opposing GMs just see a shiny batting average and say:

 

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2015/08/13/635750221080483966-880717574_e34c7ff9_tumblr_lemm04OIdO1qb7ikeo1_500.gif

[Willihammer]

Hey, it's great that Escobar worked out but nobody counted on him to do much of anything 12 months ago. And this is assuming anyone was willing to give up anything for Santana in the first place.

This is a key point I think. A year ago fans were split about 50/50 on whether Santana or Escobar should break camp as the starting SS. Most of us considered each of them to be huge question marks but Santana had the most upside. Trading Santana for comparable value would weaken what was already considered the weakest spot in the infield.

This discussion is really hindsight-is-20/20.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

Am I missing something, or is what Ryan saying is that Santana will need to make this team as an outfielder and is not an option for the utility infielder role.  In other words, he is competing with Buxton, Arcia, Kepler, Benson, etc., not Nunez, Polanco, etc. for a job. 

 

I think having him focus on outfield is the right call.  He does not fit the bill of the typical utility player, which is the versatile and sure handed fielder available for spot starts and late inning defensive help.  

 

To me, what they are saying is that you will only stay in the big leagues if you can hit and be at least an average outfielder.  I appreciate the clarity of the message, which both communicates expectations and allows him to focus his energy on being the best outfielder he can be.   

 

On the flip side, if he doesn't deliver - he may be looking elsewhere for employment. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is a key point I think. A year ago fans were split about 50/50 on whether Santana or Escobar should break camp as the starting SS. Most of us considered each of them to be huge question marks but Santana had the most upside. Trading Santana for comparable value would weaken what was already considered the weakest spot in the infield.
This discussion is really hindsight-is-20/20.

I thought Santana deserved a shot, albeit with a very short leash.

 

We all knew he was going to regress, it was only a matter of "how badly".

 

Which is why he had no real value to anyone but the Twins. We're talking about a guy who raised his MiLB OPS to .717 after a solid 2015 partial season in AAA.

[bird]

 

You are correct that he was never considered a top prospect.  The reason people are "fixated" is because the Twins trotted him out there for 277 plate appearances last year, and he was the worst hitter in baseball (and his defense wasn't any better). The difference between what they did and going to Escobar as the SS a few weeks earlier, may have been a playoff spot.  

 

My "fixation" with Santana is finding out where they are going to give away at bats this season.  

 

 

Excellent point. Doesn't it feel like Molitor got off pretty easy on that one? Imagine the wrath Gardy would have incurred had he been managing and gone with his little "favorite" Santana.

[Willihammer]

Its unfair to suggest SS was a position of strength. There was no Buxton type prospect behind Santana. Just Eddie the Esco-bear and his moustache.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Excellent point. Doesn't it feel like Molitor got off pretty easy on that one? Imagine the wrath Gardy would have incurred had he been managing and gone with his little "favorite" Santana.

I didn't let Molitor off the hook for that one and I know several others on this board felt the same way. I was going nuts when Santana was getting starts in June and July.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

There were a ton of people confident in Escobar a year ago, including several of the writers if I recall. Escobar has looked fundamentally sound and occasionally he gets on a hitting tear, too. A lot of people got that right. It's not really hindsight, sorry. The good news is the Twins are finally transitioning Santana away from short this year. Better late than never.

 

If Santana is in the competition to win an outfield spot from Buxton, Sano, Rosario or Kepler, then best of luck to him. I have nothing against him personally. I already know he's not good enough to beat out Nunez for utility, though. Nunez led the team in BA last year and demonstrated surprising skills at various positions and remained upbeat about his role, from what I read.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There were a ton of people confident in Escobar a year ago, including several of the writers if I recall. Escobar has looked fundamentally sound and occasionally he gets on a hitting tear, too. A lot of people got that right. It's not really hindsight, sorry. The good news is the Twins are finally transitioning Santana away from short this year. Better late than never.

I'd say people were more optimistic about Escobar than confident. There wasn't a reason to be much more "confident" in Escobar than there was in Santana (and I've been one Escobar's bigger supporters over the past few years while equally down on Santana during the same time period).

 

Escobar was in the same boat as Santana going into last season. A middling prospect coming off a surprising season. Let's not forget Escobar's pre-2014 OPS+ of 62 or his MiLB OPS of .675.

 

The two were peas in a pod, when you get right down to it. One happened to thrive while the other wilted. It happens.

 

But ultimately, it doesn't change the fact no GM was going to offer anything of substance for either player last offseason. They were both "wait and see, hope something breaks right" players.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Agree. One worked out, the other didn't. It happens.

[bird]

 

I didn't let Molitor off the hook for that one and I know several others on this board felt the same way. I was going nuts when Santana was getting starts in June and July.

 

 

Yeah, Molitor didn't get off scot-free, but he certainly wasn't universally lambasted, and Gardy would've been for sure. I mention this simply because I think it'll be interesting to see if Paulie learns some lessons, and if he loses the bit of the scholarship the fans seemed to give him in year one. My bet is that Paulie loses a little of the stubbornness we saw with the Santana decision.

[alarp33]

 

I didn't let Molitor off the hook for that one and I know several others on this board felt the same way. I was going nuts when Santana was getting starts in June and July.

 

Not only starts, he was pinch hitting at times down the stretch. 1-11 w/ a single and a walk as a pinch hitter.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

This is another example for TR's deficiencies as a GM and his aversion of selling high on young players. To anyone who followed Santana through the years it was obvious that his ceiling is that of a utility player in the majors, so after that one over his head season, he should had been out the door, before they will be forced to lose him on waivers when he just is not good enough to make the team.

 

OF defense really killed them in 2014 and no, Santana was not adequate at CF any way you cut it (all metrics out there were negative/below average).  He was better at CF than (lets say) Parmelee or Cuddyer were, but no.  A centerfielder he is not.  Can he become one?  The problem is that right now he is not even close to being a decent utility player, because you have 2 kinds of those:  The ones who are really good with the glove and not good with the bat (think of LNP) and the ones who are good with the bat to be able to forgive some deficiencies with the glove (think Zobrist or even Nunez.)   Santana is neither.  His glove stinks and his bat is suspect.   I do not foresee his glove improving much, so if his bat improves (like it did at AAA last season,) he will be fighting with Nunez for a job...

 

Just don't see it.

 

I'm not convinced he could "sell high" on him. What GM wouldn't realize what you did, other than Dave Stewart?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Excellent point. Doesn't it feel like Molitor got off pretty easy on that one? Imagine the wrath Gardy would have incurred had he been managing and gone with his little "favorite" Santana.

 

Agreed, but I think everyone gets a bit of a pass in year 1......